1991-08-14August 14,. 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
84
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 14, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda~'Item~Nq. 1. "The~meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
. -~.Agenda ItemNo. 2.
Agenda Item~NO. 3.
Pledge of'.Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda~from.the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item~No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.. Humphris,
· seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.la, and to accept the remain-
· ng items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discus-
sion~ Roll was Called and the motion carried by'the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Authorize County Executive to sign a revised access easement
forthe Berkmar Stormwater Drlainage Project. The following memorandum dated
August-9, 1991, was received from Mr. Richard E.' Tarbell, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development:
"Request: Staff requests the Board of Supervisors to grant authority
to.the County Executive to sign the attached(onfile) easement~
document on'behalf of the County.
"Purpose: This revised easement will allow the legal documentation ~on.
the subject properties to be in accordance with the Planning Commis-
sion's re~ent approval of-the Susan Reppert Day'Care Center Prelimi~
nary ~Site Plan. As per staff's recommendation, the site plan proposes
toterminate the connection of the existing gravel driveway between
Route 29and Berkmar Drive. With this easement, Susan Reppert releas-
es her access rights to Berkmar Drive over the County property>and her
site will solely access Route 29 through.the ThOmas-Tire site.. The
County ~eleasesallaccess rights over, the Reppert property.toRoute
29. The~remaining easement from Berkmar Drive will provide adequate
access for maintenance of the basin."
Mrs~ Humphrisasked~the width of the easement. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that the easement is 20 feet. Mr. St. John commented that people are using
the easement as .a shortcut for through traffic. If the Board approves the
easement, a barrier will be erected to eliminate traffic and to.separate the
daycare center.property from the basin~ ~ · ~..~ ~
Mr~ Bowie asked who maintains the road thataccesses the drainagebasin.
Mr. Tucker responded that theroad that~accesses the drainage'basin is ~main-
tained'by the County.
Mrs. Humphris~asked about the positive aspects of the propomat~ Mr. St.
John"stated that all-of the~parties ihvolved want this revised~access ease-
ment. The agreementwill prevent a private easement from being abused. Mr.
Cilimberg commented that the revised agreement wouldalso allow better devel-
opment of the site.
August 14, 1991~(Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
85
Mr. Bain then called attention to a clerical error in the written agree-
ment. On page two the language reading: "SUBSCRIBED and sworn to" should
read: "ACKNOWLEDGED". Mr. St. John agreed.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to
sign the following revised access easement for the Berkmar Stormwater Drainage
Project:
THIS RELEASE of easement rights made this 6th day of August, 1991, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, hereinafter
Albemarle, and SUSAN S. REPPERT, Grantee, hereinafter Reppert, whose
address is 1100 Dryden Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901,
W I T N E S S E T H:
FactUal background: Reppert is'the ~,o~ner
shown.'on plat of Gloeckner,-Lincoln & Osborne, Inc~, datedNovember
11, 1985, .as revised, of record in the Clerk's office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 913, page 121, such property
having been conveyed to her by deed of Leroy R. Hamlett, Trustee,~
etals., dated May 29, 1991, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's~office
in Deed Book 1162, Page 489. Albemarle is the owner of Lot 2C as
shown on the above survey by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc., being
a portion Of the land conveyed to it by deed of Harvie~L. Spangler and
wife, dated October 29~ 1986, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's
office in Deed'BOok 913, Page 115.
Albemarle and R~ppert have certain easement rights over each of
the other party's land and now desire to release such rights.
NOW; THEREFORE, for and in cons~ideration of the releaseto it
described below, Albemarle does hereby Release, Grant 'and Convey .unto
Reppert all right~ title and .interest which it mayhave in rights'of
access onto or over the 'above described propertyOf Reppert, including
those reserved inca certain deed from Albemarle to Caleb N..Stowe,
dated November,s, 1986, Of record in the aforesaid Clerk!s office'~in
Deed BoOk 913,. page 119. ~
In considerationof 'the above release to her, Reppertdoes hereby
Release, Grant and Convey Unto Albemarle all right~ title and'interest
which she has to any right of access onto or over the above described
property of Albe~narle, including any rights for the benefit of her
above, described property as reserved and granted in a certain deed
dated November 3, 1986. from Albemarle to Mastercraft Building and
Development Corporation, which deed is of record in the aforesaid
Clerk's office~in'Deed Book 913, Page 132.
IN WITNESS~WHEREOF the Countyof Albemarle hascauSed its name to
besignedhereto by its.duly authorized representative and witness the
· signature and. Seat of SusanS. Reppert.
Item 5.la. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board' from
the Directorof ~Finance,,the Sheriff, theCormmonweat~h's AttorneY'and the~
Regional 3ail' for the Mdnth of JUly, 1991~ werempproved by'the above recorded
vote.
-Item 5.2.' .~Memorandnm dated July 25, 1991, from Mr.~' Ray D. Pethtel,
CommiSsioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, enclosing a copy (on
file) ~of the Fmnal ~1991-92 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement
Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit,
Ports and Airports." Received for information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated July 26, 1991, from Mr. Flavio Cardoso,, Virginia
Cycling Club, noting a bicycle race to be held on September 15, 1991, on
Routes~810, 6.01, 671 and 6.64, was received for information.
86
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 5.4. Letter dated July 30, 1991, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley, Dis-
trict Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, entitled "Ridge
Street Project, City of Charlottesville, "was received as follows:
"The following provides further information to the public hearing held
on December 3, 1987, for improvement to Ridge Street.
On July 18, 1991, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the
location and major design features on the Ridge Street project in the
City of 'Charlottesville as presented at the December 3, 1987, public
hearing. There will be a provision to reduce the vertical clearance
between the railroad tracks and proposed bridge structure to 18 feet
~ four inches~" - -
Item 5.'5. Letter,dated August 6, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Highway Engineer, enclosin~ the monthly list of current highway~projects,
and construction schedule of same, was received for information~
Item .5~6. Notice dated August 1, 1991, from Virginia Power of an appli-
cation filed with the State Corporation Commission seeking an increase in its
base electric rates and expedited relief, was received for information.
Item 5.7. Memorandum dated July 22, 1991, from ~Mr. John F. Miller,
Police Chief, entitled "Police Department Work Plan 1991-92," was received for
information.
Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated May 28, 1991, from Mr.-lHugh C. Miller,
State Historic Preservation Officer, addressed .to Mrs. Anathea Ashley, Stating
that.WAYERTREE~HALL FARM was entered in the National Register.of Historic
PlaCes on July 9, 1991, was received for information.
Item 5.9. Copy of,letter dated August 6, 1991, from Ms. Amelia Patter-
son, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Roger W. Ray, entitled "Official
Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 120, Parcels 33
and 33B," was received for information.
Not Docketed. Mr. Bowie announced the cancellation of the joint meeting
of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board scheduled for this afternoon.
The School Board is unable to get a quorum. Mr. Bowie said the following
three-items were 'scheduled for discuSsion: 1) Murray'High School, Z) Capital
Improvements Program and 3) Set meeting schedule for joint SchOol Board
meetings for 1991~92~
Mr. Bowie said that earlier he met with Mr. Cliff Haury, Chairman of the
School Board. Mr. Haury indicated that he is sending the Board of Supervisors
a letter.explaining the review process for Murray High ~School.~.This Board.
will have an ~opportunity to respond to Mr. Haury's letter.
Mr. Bowie said he under.stands that the plans for the new middle school
are available should any Supervisor wish to review them. It is also his
understanding that the plans have not yet been reviewed by the Planning
Commission. ~
Mr.'Bain had thought that the Supervisors would be able to get the~CIP in
Octo~ber~ Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Bowiesaid~this Board suggestedscheduling joint meetings with the
School:Board for 1991-92 on the second Wednesday of each month beginning at
3:00 p.~m. He assumes that the schedule Was approved by the.School Board since
he has not oth~rwiseinformed. He said that the next joint meeting of the two
bOards will be September 11 at 3:00 p.m. ~ ~ ~
87
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) ......
(Page 4)
Mrs. Humphris said she has talked with an engineer who specializes in
energy efficient building design. The engineer is from Maryland and has
volunteered to fly himself here, at his own expense, to make a 45 minute slide
presentation at the October 9 joint meeting of the Board and School Board.
She though that in connection with the on-going school building projects, it
might be wise to take advantage of this offer. There was no objection ex-
pressed by Board members.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 20(N) and March 25, 1991.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 25, 1991, page 16 (#4) to the
end:-andlfound th~m:to.~be~satisfactory·
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of March 20 (N), 1991, page 8 (#8) to
the end and'~found them to-be satisfactory. ~
MotiOn.'was offered'by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll,was Called and themotion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Letter dated August 1, 1991, from
The Honorable Roderic H. Slayton,' Mayor, Town of Orange,~concerning use of
Route I5 aS an. Eastern bypass, either in lieu of the Western bypass around
Charlottesville, or as a much needed improvement (deferred from August 7,
1991); and letter dated AUgust 7, 1991, on the same subject. (Letters set out
in the minutes~of August 7,~ 1991.)
Mri~Bowie said.BOard members have been provided two draft responses tO~
~Mayor Slayton's latter of August t. The first.response was draftedby~staff
and be'drafted the second response. It is his feeling that~his'response'to
Mayor Slayton is positive and supports the Mayor's position without harming
the~County's position~
Mrs. Humphris commented that both letters reference the request for a
study. After re-reading Mayor Slayton's letter, she did not find that he
requested a study, but, instead, asked that all the municipalities of the~area
bind andwork together.for the same purpose. Shethought.it would he, more
accurate-for the~response to state that the Albemarle-County Board of Super-
visors.~'supports your suggestion to establish Route~15'as a major altefnate."
Mr. ~Bowie accepted Mrs. Humphris' suggestion, and~asked if other Board members
had an comments.
Mrsi Humphris then.suggested'that "1990". be added tothe second paragraph
that begins "On November 20 ..... " She~went on to say that in order for
everything to continue to be clear, in that same paragraph after ~thewords,
"at some time in the future," the following language of the Commonwealth
Transportation-Board be added: "when traffic conditionSalong the corridor
become unacceptable and economic conditions permit."
Mr. Bowie asked if other BOardmembers had any COmments. .There were
none. :
Motion was. then offered by Mr. BoWerman, ~seconded by Mrs.~ Humphris, to
authorize a letter (set out below) be forwarded to TheHonorable Roder'icH.
Slayton, Mayor':of the TOwn of Orange, supporting a suggestion from the Town of
Orange that Route 15 be established as a major north-south traffic corridor.
'Mrs. Humphris then suggested thatthefollowing sentence be added.to.the
letter: "When you have received replies from all of the localitiesaddressed,
perhaps there would.be great value in VDoT's study of yourproposal." She
added that this Board needs to ask for something to happen, and she feels that
nothing willhappen if ~that does not happen. Mr. Bain commented that if Mayor
Slayton~wants something to happen, he will push for something to be done. Mr.
Bowie commented.that it is as much in Albemarle County's interest to get it
done as it is forOrange~County, and certainly Albemarle County'should
August 14, 1991 <Regular Day Meeting) '"~8
(Page 5)
cooperate as much as possible. There being no further discussion roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The following letter was sent to Mayor Slayton:)
August 14, 1991
The Honorable Roderic H. Slayton
Mayor, Town of Orange
119 Betleview Avenue
Orange, VA 22960
~-. Dear Mayor'Slayton:
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County strongly supports
yoursuggestion toestablish Route 15 as a majoc.alternate north~south
traffic corridor. During the public hearings on the proposed Char-
lottesville bypass, members of this Board, as well as many private
~itiZens, expressedthe view.that Route 15 is.a more logical corridor
than Route 29, which already has heavy commercial developments and
numerous stop lights.
On November 20, 1990, the:Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
voted to perform the necessary improvements as shown in the
ChartotteSville~AlbemarleTransportation Study (CATS) and to proceed
with a western~bypass at some time in the future when traffic condi-
tions along the Route 29 corridor become unacceptable and economic
conditions-permit.
This decision-notwithstanding, your suggestion to. develop Route
1.5 has considerablemerit. It would certainlyhelp the economic ·
development of the towns of Orange and Gordonsville, as well as Orange
and Louisa counties. ParticUlarly important is the'fact that the
citizens apparently desire.this improvement.
When you have received replies from all the localities addressed
perhaps there would be great value in a VDoT study of your proposal.
Again, be assured of our support in your efforts and let me know
if we can be of any further assistance~
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
F. R. Bowie
Chairman"
Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: Copy of letter dated July 15,
1991~ from Mr. R.'Bryan Mitchell, Deputy State.Historic Preservation Officer,
to Mr. R. L. Hundley, Environmental Engineer, Virginia Department' of Transpor-
tation, re: Route 29 Bypass (deferred from August 7, 1991)~ (Letter set out
in the minutes of August 7, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker saidthe staff has been in contact with the State Historic
Preservation officeand with VDoT~ It is his understanding that the State
Historic Preservation office wanted to alert VDoT that, from their perspec-
tive, the Route 29 bypass would create~an adverse visual impact on the
Schlesinger Farm property. This property is in a "4F" category which means
thatlthe.propoSed road alignment needs to be shifted. VDoT indicated that the
proposed road alignment does not run across the Schlesinger Farm, but would
have an adverse impact visually on the farm. It is also his understanding
that~VDoT will address the adverse impact.
Mrs. Humphris said that.it is her understanding~that the Historic Land-
marks Office is declaring the Westover property (owned by the Universityof
Virginia) and theSchtesinger Farm property aspotential historic landmarks.
She asked what impact this decision will have on the proposed bypass. She
89
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) ~. ~
(Page 6)
also asked what would happen if t'he University of Virginia does not want
Westover designated as a historic landmark. Mr. Tucker replied that he
believes the Historic Landmarks Office can designate property as a historic
landmark whether the owner wants that designation or not as long as the
property meets the criteria, and it is considered to be a valuable resource
that should be protected. It is his understanding that if the road does not
go through the Schlesinger property and if the adverse impact is totally
visual, the historic landmarks designation will not change the proposed bypass
alignment. Again, VDoT will have to address the visual impact. Mrs. Humphris
thinks that VDoT needs to make it clear exactly what the adverse effects of
the proposed bypass will be on certain properties. People at St. Anne's-
Belfield are also concerned about the impact of the proposed bypass on this
property. Mr. Bowie~said he does not know of anything else this Board can do
at-thi~ time other than express its concern that the County wants its historic
landmarks protected.
Mrs...Humphris said that' it iS.imposSible to get an understanding of
VDoT,s. thinking on the'alignment, especialtywhen it is not understood~what
can and cannot be done~legally. She commented that it wouldbe helpful for
the Board to know the reason the decision was madeto put the road through
land.around homes instead of open space.~~ She smid that this Board doesnot
have the information that allows it~to understandatl of this. She added that
last week she asked that the Boardhave access to a staff report,~ dated June.
19, on the Memorandum of Agreement between the Secretary of Natural Resources
and the Secretary of Transportation. She said that this document sheds anew
light on environmental concerns related to building new roads., asfar as who
has what authority. She feels that theBoard needs to have access to this
kind of information.
Mr. Roosevelt said that at the Highway Conference in Lexington last year
the Governor announced that he wanted the Secretary of Natural Resources and
the Secretary' of Transportation to Workout an agreement which would allow the
Natural Resource agencies more involvement in,the preliminary engineering of
the highWay projects~ This Board has a copy of that agreement.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the first paragraph of. the agreement'
stateS-that: "Governor Wilder asks us~o prepare a Memorandum of Agreement~to
further our goals~of~insuring a transportation system, that protects the..
environment." She~ then quoted'fromthe second paragraph: "In accordance~with
i991 amendments, Chapter. 12, paragraph 10.1-12 of the Virginia Code, the'
purpose of the agreement is to establish a-state agencyenvironmental review
process, for highway projects in'Virginia.'' She said that thisBoard definite-
ly.needS toknowmore about this matter and its impact on the pro.posed bypass.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 7c~ .Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Tucker said that the Board asked the Planning Commission to review,
for compliance with the ComprehenSivePlan, the improvement or extension, of
Commonwealth Drive and/or Peyton Drive~ The~Commission hasdone review and~
~determined that!both roadways are'in compliance withthe Comprehensive Plan.
Thestaff is recommending that Commonwealth Drive.be extended. Some-concerns
havebeen expressedbyComdial since those employees areusingPeytonDrive as
an access. ~The staff's recommendation is to vacate Peyton~Drive.. ~Thestaff
is continuing-to work with Comdial in an-attempt to come up with a workable~
solution~
Mr. Bain asked if the extension of Commonwealth Drive could be done
before winter. Mr. Tucker replied that if the Board wants the staff to move
forward with Commonwealth Drive, the staff will do its best to get this work
completed.
Mr. Bowie stated-that he is more concerned.with working on the traffic
flow issue'as opposed to the entrance for a parking~ lot~ Mr. Bain agreed. He
.thinks the work-toextendCommonWealth Drive should proceed~ Mr. Bowie~asked
if there were plans to barricade access to the Comdial parking lot'~ Mr.~
Tucker responded '!no". He added the staff is recommending that PeytonDrive
be, vacated and.each adjoining property owner be given one-half of. the
9O
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
right-of-way on either side, or leave the right-of-way open and let Comdial
upgrade Peyton Drive.
Mrs. Humphris said she met with Mr. Bucci, Mr. Johnston and Mr. Ford,
representatives from Comdial, on August 6. They presented maps to show the
hardship that they would incur should the Board proceed with the extension of
Commonwealth Drive. She understood Comdial's problem, but she also thinks the
Board should proceed with Commonwealth Drive. She hopes that the staff will
continue to work with Comdial because Comdial contributes significantly to the
community. She said that Comdial is quite an asset to the community and she
hopes that the County will do whatever can be done within its' means to meet
Comdial's needs.
.-~ Mr. Bowie thought that it was the Board's intent all along to proceed
with Commonwealth Drive, if it complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He added
thathe has no objection to- working with Comdial, but he would be concerned
if Comdial was asking for County tax dollars to fix an access road for them.
He added that as far as the easement is concerned, it does not trouble him.
He asked if there were comments from other Board members. Mr. Tucker said the
staff would like to have some direction from the Board as to how to proceed.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded-by Mr. Bowerman,
to authorize the staff to proceed with the extension of Commonwealth Drive in
lieu of, upgrading Peyton Drive, as soon as possible, to get it built before t-
winter. Roll was'called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: 'None~
~ Mr. Bain asked ~Mr.' Roosevelt if the Six Year Plan must be amended next
year~. He is thinking specifically about funds for the grade separated inter-
changes on Route 29 North.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that the Six Year Plan for primary roads is
updated every year. He said that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
holds public hearings in Aprilin the various districtS, and then a tentative
plan is develoPed. Hearings are then.held on the tentative plan in june, with.
the~final plan adopted in June or July.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain the terms for acquiring the
rights-of-way fOr the three grade~separated'interchanges. She said 'that
Phase Iof the CTB's resolution mentions additional lanes on-Route 29, and at
the same time, mentions reserving land in the corridor. She asked about the
process by which this'will be done,
Mr. Rooseveltreplied that., at the moment, there, is no activity on
reserving-orpurchasing right-of-way for the interchanges. He said that YDoT
is working on improving the existing Route 29, from Rio Road. to Airport Road,
to six'or eight lanes. He.is unaware of any action on the interchanges, so he
noted that his statements are more of an educated,guess than knowledge. He
believes, however, that schematics of the .interchanges will.be prepared,~and
the County will be requested to' assist VDoT in reserving the rights-ofrway at
these interchange locatiOnS through'site plan ordinances, as properties in
thoseareas change use. He said that if properties become available in those
areas,~it is possible that allocations could be put into the budget in the~Six
Year Ptansimilar to what is being done with theAlternate 10-,alignment. He
stated that theseallocations deal with hardship cases or caseswhere VDoT
would want to buy the rights-of-way before the property was redeveloped. He
said it is obvious to everyone that it would be much more expensive to buy the
land after it was redeveloped. He added, that to his knowledge, neither of
these activities are under way at this time.
Mrs. Humphris next asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain why YDoT is,acquiring
land for-something that may or may not be done, but provisions are notbeing
made to acquire land for the interchanges.
Mr.. Roosevelt responded~that the activity on Alternate 10 is in response
to the widespread concern that people'=s property values are'being reduced or
that the people will-be unable to sell their property because it is along the
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
91
route of Alternate 10. He knows of no similar outcry concerning the areas in
the vicinity of the interchanges. He noted that in all cases, the properties
at these interchange locations are currently fully developed. He said that
this does not mean that they will not be redeveloped because some of the
properties that are there now are in marginal use for that location.
Mr. Bowie commented that at a joint meeting with State legislators and
this Board in December, 1990, this subject came up. At that meeting Delegate
Mitchell Van Yahres said that he was willing to take a request for advance
purchase of the properties in hardship cases to the Governor.
Mr. Roosevelt said he is unaware of any allocations made by VDoT for the
interchanges~ He does not.work directly with the design work and he is not
aware of how the $1 million this year and $3 million over the next four years
will be used for Alternative 10. It is his understanding that the funds will
be used to do enoughdesign work along Alter-native 10 routetO-deal~with ~the
hardship cases along that route. He does not believe that this money'will'be
used for interchanges.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible'that VDoT will not build.the
interchanges. Mr, Roosevelt replied that, as things currently stand, he would
say "no." He added that anything can change. He said that everyone thought
that Peyton Drive was going to be improved until the Board 'took action today
to change the alignment from Peyton Drive to Commonwealth Drive. He .went..on
to say-that under the conditions 'that exist today~ those interchanges will be
constructed, but they are, at best, nine years away, and a lot of things can
happen in-nine years. He said that it is not necessarily a change in VDoT's~
position that mightprevent the interchanges from being built, bUt it could be
conditions that are jOintly agreed to bythe Board'and VDoT ~or other-issues~
that might come into play~ He reiterated that, as things stand now, he thinks
that the plan will go forward as planned, with money beingspent to~widenthe
existing Route 29 to six and. eight lanes. He added that this will be followed
by the second phase which is construction of the interchanges, and then the
third phase which is construction of a bypass, when traffic makes it neces-
sary.
Mrs. Humphris stated that there is great fear and suspicion that the ~t~ack
of any plan by VDoT to set aside rights-of-way in the Route 29 corridor for--
those three grade-separated interchanges in a timely fashion~will result in
their not being built. She added that VDoT might.then say that Route 29 does
not function as well as is needed and it is necessary to go directly to a
bypass. She needs to kHow,Mr, RooseVelt's~.thinking 'on'the matter because he
is the person on which this .Board has,to rely~
Mr. Roosevelt 'thinks that it is important torecognize that regardless'~of
whether or not the discussion is about the secondarysystem, the primary
system'.or the interstate system,, the needs of those systemsfar outweigh the~
funds available to make improvernents~ He said that this ,is especially true on
the primary system in the Culpeper District. When $14 million to $16 million
is received a year for all the primary needs in the entire Culpeper District,
which covers an 11 county area, someone has to set priorities and decide where
these limited funds are going to be spent'~in any one year ~or over a, six year~
period. He added that YDoT has'tried to balance~theneedsof the Charlottes-
ville area versus the needs of the rest of the Culpeper District and be sure
that the?entire district is being treated properly. Hewent on to say.that
Phase I improvements of Route 29need to move forward. He believes that.~.if
there is no request, desire or concern aboutA~ternative 10, the next funds
for improvements in theRoute 29~corridor~will be for the interchanges. He
does not think that $3 million can be spent on Alternative 10 and another $t
million can be spent studying the interchanges on Route 29, because that
million has to come~from somewhere else. He-said. that he, does not want to
take this money from planned improvements to the existing Route 29, and this
means that'the money'has to come from some other county~in the ~Culpeper
District. He thinks that the CTB and, specifically, Mrs~ Constance KinchlOe,
have a very difficult job in balancing the needs of this district against~the
funds that are available. He thinks it is as simple.as what is the highest
priority problem. As far as Phase II and Phase.III for Route 29, he believes
that ~the hardship cases along the Alternative 10 alignment are a.higher
priority than the interchanges. He.does not think-that ¥DoT has any hidden
motives.
92
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Bowerman stated that at a meeting with some representatives of VDoT
two weeks ago, he also raised the issue of the interchanges. He said that
YDoT mentioned the interchanges as one of the issues where they hope for
County cooperation. At that meeting YDoT also mentioned that four years ago
at the design public hearing for the improvements to Rio Road and Route 29,
this Board did not unanimously support ¥DoT's proposal for an interchange.
Mr. Bowerman said that it is his understanding that it is routine for VDoT to
purchase the rights-of-way for the interchanges since no one has indicated a
hardship.
Mrs. Humphris asked if all Board members attended the design public
hearing for Rio Road and Route 29. Mr. Bowie responded that only one Board
member attended the'hearing. Mrs,'Humphris stated that she was at the hearing
and took copious notes. She added that it was a night that she will never
forget because the way that the question on the interchange was presented by
VDoT, there.,was'every reason for the~opponents, namely the businesses a~fected
and their attorney, to come'and present vehement-oppoSitionto'that grade
separated.interChange at. Rio Road. She said. that there.was absolutely-no
reason for~members of the .public to.come and saythat the interchange is
essential because the public assumed that YDoThad already agreed that it Was
essential and the intersection would be built. She went on to say that after
that meeting, it was.amazing when VDoT took the position that because 25
people.had spoken in opposition to the interchange, that the public opposition
was so great that it had been defeated. She made a comparison to the public
opposition to the Alternative 10 bypass where there were 5000 people asking
that the bypass not be built, but .VDOT continues to proceed with it. She
stated that it all depends on how a question is presented to the public. She
does not think the~publicwill be so easily deceived about the gradeseparated
interchanges as*they were previously. She feels that. it was an incredible
thing that happened at the meeting and the County has had to dealwith the
situation ever since~ She concluded by saying that VDoT has beenallowedto
say that there was overwhelming opposition to-that grade separatedinter-
change, and that simply was not true.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt if Hillsdale Drive, between Rio Road and
Greenbrier Drive, is in the State Secondary System. Mr. Roosevelt answered
"no"i Mr. Bowerman asked when Hillsdale Drive is expected to be taken into
the State System~ Mr. Roosevelt respondedthat VDoT prepared a punchlist of
improvements to be made which has been given to the developer.
Mr. Bowerman then asked if a traffic count is being done at the intersec-
tions of Hillsdale Drive and Greenb=ier Drive with. Rio Road for determination-
of~whether a signal is justified. Mr. Roosevelt answered "yes~" Mr,
Roosevelt said that a field study has been done, and-he expects to receive
infOrmation from that study soon. He will advise the Board ~at that time as~to
the results of the study. ~
Mr. Bowie stated that after the vote at the August 7, 1991, meeting on
the letter to Secretary Milliken concerning Route 29 North and Alternative 10
bypass,' Mr. Bain expressed an objection to the lead paragraph on Enclosure
Three. After the objection, he stated that he Would rewrite the language.
The statement clearly states that if there is a positive comment concerning
the first'letter to Secretary Milliken, the Board maybe inclined to write
another letter. He is at a loss as to what could be added and would prefer to
wait to see whether or not there is a Positive response before any further
correspondence is initiated. He added that a motion is not necessary fore. this
matter, unless some Board member disagrees.
Board members indicated no disagreement with Mr. Bowie's comments.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-102, Centel. (Deferred from July 10, 1991.)
(Applicant requests deferral to. September 11, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie informed the Board that the applicant has again requested
deferral.' He noted that this is the third deferral.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
93
Mr. St. John said that he believes that Centel is working on another
approach. He recommends that the Board defer this special permit request.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved to defer SP-90-102 until September 11, 1991.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins asked if Centel is still consid-
ering the tower on the same site. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he is unsure.
He thinks that Centel is looking at some other options.
Mr. Perkins said that he is disturbed that this matter is continually
being postponed. He does not know who was or is being notified, but there are
people in Crozet who are concerned about this, and they have no way of knowing
when it will be brought before the Board again. Mr. St. John stated that it
can~be readvertised before coming badk before the Board.
Mr. Bowie commented that he is tired of deferrals, particularly because
of the public interest. He said that there isa motion and a secondtO, defer
the matter until September, but in-September be'would support that the'matter
be dropped altogether, if it is not heard then.
Mr~ Bain suggested that maybe.the Board should consider adopting a policy
where if a deferral is notrequested.at least a week in advance, the Board
will.not considerit. If there-are extenuating circumstances, such as ill-
ness, etc., the deferral would be considered. He added that when an item such
as this is continually deferred, the staff report becomes stale.
Mr. BOwie suggested that instead of deferring action until September
that the Board defer the request until August 21, to give staff a chance to
find~out the status of'the project.
Mr. Bain then amended his motion to defer SP-90-102 until August 21,
1991. As seconder, Mr. Perkins agreed~
Roll was then .called and the motion carried with the following recorded
voted:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins~ and Mr...Wayo
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9.
to Mint Springs Park~
Ronald H. J~ Langman, Land Donation - Parcel Adjacent
Mr~TUcker summarized thefollowing memorandum dated August 14, 1991:
"Background: During the special permitapproval granted t0Emerald
Land Company onApril 20~ 1988, for Emerald Ridge Subdivision, the
developer offered to donate approximately 56 acres of land to the
County. This tract is adjacent to Mint Springs Park and would provide
both a buffer to the adjoining subdivision and watershed protection.
This parcel df land is shown on the County's tax records as parcel
.32-20 and contains 56.587 acres with a current assessment of $73,600.
This represents real estate taxes to the County of $529.92 per year at
the present tax rate. Although donation of the land was not included
as a specific condition of the special permit, it was clearly offered
during.the discussion phase and referencedthroughout the staff
report.
Mr. Ronald Langman's letter of May 30, 1991 (copy on file) indicates
three conditions'under which'the propertycould be donated: ~
(1)
Roll back'on 1990 and 1991 taxes on the property: Tax reCords
indicate that $335.22 was paid .onTthis tract-in 1990 and $529.92
will be due for 1991. While State law prohibits the County from
forgiving taxes owed, a contract of purchase for the tax amount
would accomplish the same effect, if.it was the Board's desire to
do so.
94
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
(2) A mutually agreeable walking access be available to Emerald Ridge
residents leading to the Mint Springs gate house: Staff per-
ceives no problem with this from an operational standpoint.
(3)
Lifelong family membership for the Roell and Langman families as
long as they own property at Emerald Ridge: Staff perceives this
as a policy issue and not an operational concern.
Mr. Ron Langman has indicated that he is willing to prepare the deed
of gift at his expense, if the Board is willing to proceed. It should
be noted that the above listed conditions were not a part of the
discussion when the original offer to donate the land was made.
Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the
site and determined this to be an asset to Mint Springs Park. Staff
foresees no significant problems resulting fromMr. Langman!s.offer
and recommends your acceptance subject to your final discussion and
resolution."
Mr. Bain wondered if having access to the gatehouse woUld~ be a problem
after park hours. Mr. Tuckerreplied that=no access would be allowed after
hours, Mr. Bowie suggested that this stipulation be put into the agreement.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Katurah Roell, Vice-President of Emerald Land
Company, is present to respond to any questions~
Mr. Bowie thought that the third condition for "lifelong family member-
ship" needed to be clarified in the conditions. Mr. Bain suggested that~the
family'names be specifically identified as to the persons that own the pro-
perty and not all other relatives.
Mr. Tucker told the Board that the staff had not prepared an agreement at
this time, but does want to know if the Board is agreeable.
Mrs.,Humphris"suggested that theagreement stipulate that lifetime
memberships would be given to the Roell and Langman families, "who own the
properties." She said that this would indicate those specific property
owners.
Mr. Bain assumed that the families want lifetime memberships~at Mint
Springs Park at no expense. Mr. St. John pointed out that there is no such
thing' as membership becaUSe it is an open park, but if these conditions' are
agreeable to the Board, all other residents would be required to pay a fee .for
use of the Park except these two families. He went on to say that the origi-
nal offer was an unconditional, absolute promise to donate this land, but now
there are strings attached.
Mr, Perkins commented that he thinks the County Attorney should be
instructed to proceed with acquiring the land and working out the best deal
for the~County. Mr. St~ John said that the Board has to accept theland
donation, and then tell him whether'or not the conditions are acceptable or
unacceptable.
Mr. Bain wondered if the lot that is being donated is developable. He
remembers that this lot has steep slopes, and he does not know if any ~of the
land could support a house. He d6es not know if this is one of the original
parcels that was shown with the special permit. Mr. Tucker remarked thatthe
land-is more conducive for useas a park than residential use.
Mr~Bowie indicated that he .hasno problem with the donation-or condi~
tions stipulated, but he would like to make sure that the agreement is clear
and what happens if the Park closes.
Mrs. Humphris asked who would draft theagreement. Mr. St. John respond-
ed that he can draft an agreement after he has all of the necessary informa-
tion and the terms.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, commented that the
County has a similar-type agreement with a property owner at Chris Greene
Lake.
Mr~ Bowie suggested that the County Attorney and County Executive draft
an agreement outlining the terms. He expressed particular concern with the
term "life long family membership" and asked that it be clarified to relate to
the Park and the family members who own property adjacent to the Park.
Mr. St. John stated that he does not recommend approval of an agreement
at this time. He said that the Board is expressing an inclination to go along
with these terms, so the deed should be drawn. He added that the donor
prepares th~'deed and theSes, terms should be included with the deed for filing
in.the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office. He will review the deed after it
is drafted.
Mr.-. Bain suggested that the agreement be returned to the Boardfor review
on-September 11. Other Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 10.~ Resolution: Application for Housing Award funds.
Mr~ Tucker said the Board'has received a letter from Mr. Francis Fife,
Executive Director and Vice President, Charlottesville Housing Foundation,
requesting that the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County jointly adopt
a resolution nominating the Charlottesville Housing Foundation for the Vir-
ginia Housing Achievement Award.~
Motion was offered by Mr-.. PerkinS, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to author~
ize the Chairman to sign the following resolution nominating the
Charlottesville Housing Foundation for a 1991 Housing Achievement Award. Roll
was called and themotion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
Non~.
(The following resolution was adopted:)
-R E S 0 L U'T I 0 N
'WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation'~has been inst~u~
mental in the~provision~of affordable housing in the County of Albe-
marle and the City of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Foundation has achieved its mission through
successful fund-raising, the development of affiliations with other
housing providers, as well as~the institution ofacomprehensive
program of initiatives including new construction and rehabilitation,
sale and rental opportunities, adaptive reuse of older, buildings,
loans and grants, client counseling, advocacy, and technical assis-
tance;
WE, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, and
the City Council of Charlottesville,.Virginia, therefore resolve to
nominate the Charlottesville Housing Foundation for a 1991 Housing
Achievement' Award.
The Board recessed at 10:00 a.m. and reconvened at 10:39 a.m.
AgendaltemNo. lla. Appropriation: ~Request from~the Senior Center.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated August 2, 1991:
"The attached'~letter (on file) from the Senior Center asks .that the
Board reconsider their 1990-91 funding request during Board review of
prior year carry-over funds. The request does not specify a dollar
amount, but does identify a $162,812 shortfall in meeting capital
needs and an increasedneed for operational'funds due to higher'~costs
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
associated with the new building and a reduction in their United Way
funding.
As you may remember, the Senior Center submitted a FY 91-92 budget
request for $9675 to help support the coordination and organization of
their Health and Nutrition Program. This request was not approved by
the Board during budget work sessions. The Senior Center was encou-
raged, at that time, to look towards their own membership for addi-
tional resources in increased membership or program fees and to
request funds equitably from other jurisdictions in the Planning
District whose constituents are served by the Center.
r. Although the Boardmay wish to reconsider this request, the primary
reasons for not funding their initial budget request are basically the
same. ~l
Mr. Tucker indicated that Ms. Liz Seabrook, Executive Director of the
Senior Center, is present to answer questions.
Mrs.-Bowie said that prior to today's meeting, he met with Ms~ EliZabeth
Gleason of the Senior Center. He added that he has been a member of the
Senior Center for~years ~and participates in'its programs~ He said that he
explained to Ms. ~Gleason that he Could not support the. request~for the same
reasonsthat he could, not support other requests that come to the Board out of
the budget sequence.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a ~similar request has been made to the City of
Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker answered "no'!. Mrs. Humphris then aSked if there
are anyagencies that the Board supports that parallel this request from the
Senior Center. She noted that the Center provides a valuable service to'the
community which is different from other types of service. Mr. Tucker indicat-
ed that the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) provides a similar type'of
service, although JABA and the Senior Center try to work together so that
their services are not be duplicated. Also, the Board endorsed the Senior
Center's request for tax exemption.
Mr~ Bowie asked if there was. a motion for this request~ There was no
response from Board members.
Agenda Item No. llb. Appropriations: Virginia Commission for the Arts
Grants: ProfesSional Services Instructional - SchOols; Virginia Discovery
Museum; Piedmont Council of the Arts.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum.dated July 26, 1991:
"Attached (on file) foc your approval are two appropriation forms to
amend the FY 91-92budget due to recent grants from The'Virginia
Commission for the Arts.
The first Local Government Challenge Grant of $2400 awarded toAlbe-
marle will be ~allocated evenly between The Piedmont Councit~ of the
Arts and The Virginia Discovery Museum to support their ongoing
operations.
The secondArtists in Education Residency Program grantof $5219 has
been awarded to Stony Point Elementary Schoolto develop an artistic
and cultural program on African Arts."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Hnmphris, to adopt the
following resolutionto approve an appropriation request~accepting a Local
Government Challenge Grant-in the amount of $2400 from The Virginia Commission
for the Arts to be allocated evenly between the The Virginia Discovery Museum
and The Piedmont Council of the Arts. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris~ Mr~ Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: ~None.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM VIRGINIA
COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
97
1100079000560401
1100079000560410
VIRGINIA DISCOVERY MUSgOM
PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS
TOTAL
$1200.00
1200.00
$2400.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
.2100024000240418
VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS
TOTAL
$2400.00
$2400.00
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following~resolution to approve an appropriation request accepting!an,Artists
in Education Residency Program Grant in the amount of $5219 from The Virginia
Commission for the Arts to develop an artistic and cultural program on African
Arts at Stony PointElementary School.
Mrfway asked if the School Board~has approved this request. Mr.~Tucker
answered"yes". Mr. Bowiewondered why there was only one school inVOlve~.
Mr. Tucker replied that Stony Point pursued the grant on its own.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
with the followingrecorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCALYEAR: 91/92
'FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM VIRGINIA
COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1221161101312500
_'REVENUE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL
TOTAL
$5219.00
$5219.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200024000240419
VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS
TOTAL
$5219.00
$5219.00'
Agenda Item No'. llc. Reappropriations.
Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the fOllowing
memorandum addressed to Mr. RobertW. Tucker, Jr',, County, Executive:
'"GENERAL FUND: Based on departmental requests and outstanding pur-
chase orders, theattachedAppropriation'Form #910006 itemizes the~
amounts requested for reappropriation ~in the General Fund. These
reappropriations represent services, supplies or equipment funded in
FY 1990/91 which have not been finalized and payment made. These
items are not funded in FY 1991/92. Specific details will be'provided
onrequest.
Preliminary projections indicate that General Fund revenues will
exceed expenditures by approximately $230,000, of which $178,282.63
would be needed to fund reappropriations. This small surplus results
from departmental cooperation to comply with the 1.2 percent cutback
due to 'the revenue shortfall of approximately$1.3 million.
CAPITAL FUND: Appropriation Form #910007 itemizes the amounts re-
quested for~reappropriation in the Capital Fund totalingS14,056,516.
This requestrepresents projects previously funded and not completed
as of June 30, 1991. There are several additional projects Which,
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
98
most likely, will require supplemental FY 1990/91 appropriations due
to over-expenditures. The final status of these projects is not known
at this time. A request to cover these over-expenditures and, if
necessary, reappropriation on these projects will be submitted next
month.
Preliminary projections indicate a Capital Improvement Fund Balance of
$450,000 after reappropriations and projected overexpenditures. As
you are aware, there are several requests for additional funding of
Capital projects which exceed this balance.
STORMWATER: Appropriation Form #910008 itemizes projects previously
~approved, bUt notcompteted totaling $445,501.04.
METRO PLANNING GRANT: Appropriation Form #900035 requests approval of
F.Y.1990/91 activities for this~previously approved grant. AtocaI
match of $2103 is required fromlthe~General Fund.
VISITOR CENTER:' Appropriation Form #900036 requests approval of FY
1990/91 activities. Rent payments from the Visitor Center are made
directly to the bank who then applies this amount to principal and
interest due on the note. These transactions must be recorded in the
County's records at year end.
MODERATE REHABILITATION GRANT: Appropriation Form #900037 requests
approval of FY 1990/91 grant activity. This grant, previously ap-
proved by the.Board, is federally fundedl
DRUG ENFORCEMENT GRANT: Appropriation Form #900038 requests approval
of FY 1990/91 grant activity. This grant, previOusly-approvedby.the
Board',-requires a local match of $11,408 from the General Fund.
THOMAS JEFFERSON HEALTH GRANT: Appropriation Form #900039 requests
approval tO'refund $1208122 to the State which was received in excess
of~the approved grant amount.
OTHER FUNDS: Final details and projections are not complete at this
point for the School Fund, Federal Programs, Cafeterias, Community
Education and several other activities. I am primarily waiting for
final.amounts on revenue accruals since many of these activities are
on a reimbursable basis. The final status should be known within the
next~thirty~days and will bepresentednext month."
Mr. Bain asked if the line item.requests from'the Clerk of the Circuit
Court (microfilm, machinery and equipment,'.machinery~and equipment replace-
ment) are new items or are items that were already in the budget. Mr. Breeden
said that the Clerk indicated that the funds for.these items were included in
last year's budget. Either the equipment was not. received or,the Clerk's
officewas not ready for it.
MotiOn Was~offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution to approve FY 1990-91 reappropriations from the General Fund as
requested (Form #910006). Roll was called and the motion carried~with the
followingrecorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL~YEAR: 91/92
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION.:
FY'90/91 REAPPROPRIATIONS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100012030311000
1100012140800100~
1100012140800201
1100012200540301
1100013020350000
1100021060350200
PERSONNEL-EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG
FINANCE-MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
FINANCE-WINDOWS
INFORMATION~SERVICES
BOARD OF ELECTIONS-PRINTING
CLERK OF COURT-BINDING OF RECORDS
$ 11,000.00
20,000.00
-1,709~00
4,030.00
400.00
663.00
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
1100021060600102
1100021060800100
1100021060800101
1100031010800100
1100031040950054
1100039000565500
1100041000312700
1100041000332300
1100041000601500
1100041000800200
1100043000331200
1100043000332200
1100043000600700
1100043000800101
1100043000800201
1100053011800201
1100053013800501
1100053013800700
1100071000390000
1100071000800511
1100081010312700
1100081010312701
1100081010550400
1100081010800100
1100081010800700
1100081010800710
1100083000800700
CLERK OF COURT-MICROFILM
CLERK OF COURT-MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
CLERK OF COURT-MAC & EQUIP REPLACEMENT
POLICE-VIDEO EQUIPMENT
Egll IMPLEMENTATION
SPCA
ENGINEERING-ROUTE 678
ENGINEERING-ROAD SIGNS
ENGINEERING-SIGNS
ENGINEERING-FURNITURE & FIXTURES
STAFF SERVICES-BUILDING REPAIRS
STAFF SERVICES-REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
STAFF SERVICES-SUPPLIES
STAFF SERVICES-CROZET SCHOOL BOILER
STAFF SERVICES-FURNITURE & FIXTURES
SOCIAL SERVICES-FURNITURE & FIXTURES
SOCIAL SERVICES~¥EHICLE
SOCIAL SERVICES-ADP EQUIPMENT
PARKS-FORLOINES STUDY
PARKS-VEHICLE
PLANNING-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PLANNING-MINUTP TRAFFIC MODEL
PLANNINGrTUITION
PLANNING-MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
PLANNING~ADP EQUIPMENT
PLANNINGs. ADP SOFTWARE
VPI EXTENSION-ADP~EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
99
2,808.00
1,650.00
5,726.00
6,000.00
4,325.13
330.50
5,445.00
1,500.00
129.00
1,000.00
30,490.00
2,756.00
220.00
15,593.00
4,432.00
915.00
8,214.00
7,530.00
2,500.00
16,107.00
4,320.00
5,000.00
465.00
406.00
4,949.00
760.00
6,910.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND'BALANCE $178,282.63
TOTAL $178,282.63
Regarding projects in the Capital Fund (Form #910007), Mr. TuckerbrOught
to the Board's attention theline items for Broadus Wood Elementary Sehool
(planning~and construction)''He~ indicated that the~amount for the project was
included ~in last year's budget, and this is a reappropriation of that~imoney.
He saidi'that this reappropriation will allow the School Board to move.forward
with planning of the~design work~=for the schOol expansion. Included in.the
next reviewof the'Capital Improvements Plan'will be the actual cost of the
project ~atWhich'~time the 'Supervisors.can decide whether or not to~m0ve
forward with construction. He commented that the School Oversight Committee
for the'Long Range Plan recommended this planning work tothe School Board,
and the School Board is supportive. Mr. TuCker.said. that this. would~ai!qw~
approximately nine months tO~designand bid'the project.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a 300-pupi! addition is being contemplated~ Mr.
Tucker replied that the current enrollment.is approximately 412 students.
Although'the rated capacity is 350 studentS, enrollmentis expected at 530
students bythe:end.of the decade. He stated that apProximately seven more
classrooms will be added. The library, cafeteria and support space appear to
be adequate and~are not proposed to be adjusted~
Mr~ Bain thoughtthat the ROute 810 spot improvements had. already been
completed. He asked if the $45~000 is for some additional work. Mr{ Tucker
responded'that although there are some additional spot improvements-tolbe
done, the work has been done. The $45,000 is the original amount'appropriated
to this project. The .reason that the total amount is still showing is that
the Highway Department hasnot billed the County'for the improvements~ The
money needs to be'carried forward so that it. can be expended when the.County
is billed.
Motionwas then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
thefollowing resolution to approve. FY 1990-91 reappropriationsfrom~the
Capital Fund~as requested (Form #910007). Roll.was called and the motion
carried with the following recorded vote:~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
90/91
REAPPROPRIATIONS
lO0
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1900012200800700
1900032010800520
1900033020700002
1900041000800960
1900041000800961
1900041000800962
.t900041000800963
1900041000800964
1900041000950011
19000~1000950035
1900041000950037
1900041000950038
1900041000950039
1900041000950049
1900041000950056
1900041000950059
19000410009500.64
1900041000950066
1900041000950068
1900041000950069
1900041000950072
1900041000950073
1900041020950032
1900041020950036
1900041020950050
1900041020950065
1900043100312702
1900043100800301
1900043100800901
1900051020800901
1900060100800675
1900060100950042
1900060201312350
1900060201800605
1900060202800673
1900060202800675
1900060202800902
1900060205312300
1900060205800650
1900060212800901
1900060215312300
1900060215312365
1900060215580000
1900060215800200
1900060215800605
1900060215800670
1900060215999999
1900060216312350
1900060216800200
1900060216800750
1900060216800901
1900060216800903
1900060216999999
1900060251120000
1900060251800901
1900060255312350
1900060301312350
1900060301800200
1900060301800901
1900060303800660
1900060303800903
1900071000950003
1900071000950004
1900071000950009
INFORMATION SERVICES
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL VEHICLE
REGIONAL JAIL
STREET LIGHTS
STREET LIGHTS HYDRAU/COMMONWEALTH
STREET LIGHTS HYDRAU/GEORGETOWN
STREET LIGHTS WHITEWOOD/GEORGETOWN
STREET LIGHTS GEORGTN/COMMONWEALTH
HYDRAULIC ROAD SIDEWALK
NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD
KEENE TRANSFER STATION
RIO ROAD'SIDEWALK ~
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY ENGINEERING
GEORGETOWN ROAD PATHWAY
$ 57,106.12
50,000.00
144,449.19
40,000.00
16,000.00
16,000.00
12,000.00
16,000.00
24,626.39
3,800.00
222,053.18
40,491.19
107,672.86
2,103.66
MEyERS~.DRIyE ~ 22,000:00
KEENELANDFILL CLOSURE 275,684.42
ROUTE..708/631 IMPROVEMENTS 45,000.00
ROUTE 810 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS 45,000.00
ROUTE 729/250 INTERSECTION 10,000.00
ROUTE 654 FOUR LANE UPGRADE. 82,500.00
PARK ROAD EXTENSION 41,000.00
SIDEWALK~FIFTH STREET 78,000.00
PEYTON DRIVE 87,274.58
BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENDED 219,t38.05
ROUTE 678 RELOCATION 53,750.00
COMMONWEALTH DRIVE 75,947.50
TELEPHONE CONSULTANTS 2,871.25
TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT 160,000.00
COUNTY OFFICE BLDG RENOVATIONS 121,548.72
HEALTH DEPARTMENT RENOVATIONS 7,000.00
SCHOOL PAVING PROJECTS 66,800.00
SCHOOL UNDERGROUND TANKS 148,437.77
BROADUS WOOD-PLANNING 137,373.14
BROADUS WOOD,CONSTRUCTION 252,000.00
BROWNSVILLE~HVAC 140,250.57
BROWNSVILLE-PAVING 1,140.00
BROWNSVILLE-MASONRY/ROOF 474,260.55
HOLLYMEAD-ARCHITECTURAL 3,199.36
HOLLYMEAD'CONSTRUCTION 526,010.43
WOODBROOK RENOVATIONS 11,876.58
AGNOR/HURT-ARCHITECTURAL 108,680.00
AGNOR/HURT-CIP COORDINATOR 40,352.00
AGNOR/HURT~MISCELLANEOUS 3,505.34
AGNOR/HURT-FURNITURE 220,000.00
AGNOR/HURT-CONSTRUCTION 4,461,922.55
AGNOR/HURT~UTILITIES 40,000.00
AGNOR/HURT-CONTINGENCY 208,924.99
V L MURRAY-PLANNING 25,110.00
V L MURRAY-FURNITURE 118,547.92
V L MURRRAY-PURCHASE OF. LAND 20,000.00
V L'MURRAY-RENOVATIONS 1,146,470.86
V L MURRAY-ASBESTOS REMOVAL 3,673.00
V'L MURRAY~CONTINGENCY 106,355.49
BURLEY-ARCHITECTURAL 764.56
BURLEY'RENOVATIONS 343,961.74
URBAN AREA-PLANNING 50,000.00
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL~PLANNING 69,873.19
ALBEMARLR HIGH SCHOOL-FURNITURE 1,949.00
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL-RENOVATIONS 1,789,600.88
MURRAY.EDUC CTR-RENOVATIONS 76,462.89
MURRAY EDUC CTR-ASBESTOS REMOVAL 5,474.64
PARKS-CROZET PARK. .4,601.44
PARKS-MINT SPRINGS 70,000.00
PARKS~SCOTTSVILLE COMM CENTER 2,385.48
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
1900071000950027
1900071000950042
1900071000950046
1900071000950047
1900071000950060
1900071000950074
1900071000950075
1900071000950077
1900071000950078
1900071000950080
1900071001312400
1900071001800605
~1900071002312400
· 1900071002800650
1900071002800680
1900073020312350
1900073020950040
1900073020950062
1900073020950076
PARKS-GREEN-WOOD COMM CENTER
PARKS-UNDERGROUND TANKS
PARKS-MERIWETHER LEWIS
PARKS-BEAVER CREEK
PARKS-GREENWOOD
PARKS-RECREATION FACILITIES
PARKS-FIVE SENSES TRAIL
pARKS-EARLYS¥ILLE COMMUNITY
PARKS-CHRIS GREENE BOOTH
PARKS-SWIM AREAS
WALNUT CREEK-ENGINEERING
WALNUT CREEK-CONSTRUCTION
RIVANNA PARK-ENGINEERING
RIVANNA PARK-CONSTRUCTION
RIVANNA PARK-ACCESS ROAD
LIBRARIES~PLANNING
LIBRARIES~GORDONAVENUE
LIBRARIES-RENOVATIONS
LIBRARIES-NORTH BRANCH
TOTAL
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
101
2,200.00
21,357.95
2,316.61
25,000.00
5,000.00
15,010.35
3,500.00
5,000.00
3,375.92
55,000.00
6,013.93
275,016.11
4,505.31
251,768.94
14,068.44
8,019.00
458.86
20,313.90
579,609.20
$14,056,516.00
AMOUNT
2900024000240000
2900024000240404
2900024000240414
2900024000240750
2900041000410300
2900041000410305
2900041000410306
2900051000510100
STATE CATEGORICAL
VDOTWALNUT CREEK ACCESS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
RECREATIONAL ACCESS FUND
VPSA BOND-89 ISSUE
VPSA 'BONDS~91A ISSUE
VPSA BONDS~91B ISSUE
CIP FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$ 25,900.00
350,000.00
300,000.00
126,139.50
255,983.06
597,478.97
8,773,533.00
3,627,481.47
$14,056,516.00
Motion was then offered~bY Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,~ to~:adppt
the following resolution to approve FY 1990-91 reappropriations for stocmwater
projects (Form #910008). Roll was called and the motion carried with the
following reborded vote:
AYES: Messrs.. Bain, Bowerman, BoWie, 1Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: NOne.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND': STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF~APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
FY 90/91 REAPPROPRIATIONS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1910041033800975
1910041034800975
1910041035800975
1900041036800975
1910041039800975
1910041040800975
1910041041800975
1910041042800975
1910041043800975
1910041046800975
1910041047800975
1910041049800975
1910041050800975
REVENUE
SMITHFIELD
BERKMAR
FOUR SEASONS
BIRNAM/~fNRIDGE
LICKINGHOLE CREEK
BERKELEY
LYNCHBURG
SOLOMON ROAD
FOUR.SEASONS
BERKSHIRE
KING GEORGE
WOODBROOK
WINDHAM/JARMAN
TOTAL
$ 8,599.80
11,506.21
1,313.70
90,648.91
81,203.13
91,547.62
8,000.00
14,951.20
23,100.00
17,000.00
18,080.87
26,000.00
53,549.60
$445,501.04
~DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Way,
2910051000510100 STORMWATER FUND BALANCE $445,501.04
-'~ : TOTAL $445,501~04
(Mr.. St~ John left the. meeting at 10:55 a.m.) Motion was offered by Mr.
s~conded by, MrS. Humphris,-to adopt the following resolution to approve
102
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
an appropriation in the amount of $30,137 for a Metro Planning Grant (Form
#900035). Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: METRO PLANNING
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FY 90/91 METRO PLANNING GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CRNTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1120881201110000
1120881209110000
1120881209130000
1120881214312700
1120881215110000
1120881216312700
1100093010930200
REVENUE
SALARIES-ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES
SALARIES
TRANS. MODEL CONSULTANT
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
CLASSIFICATION CONSULTANT
GENERAL FUND MATCH
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$ 2,286
6,000
4,000
217
2,000
13,531
2,103
$30,137
AMOUNT
2120824000240500
2120833000330001
2120851000512004
2100051000510100
.GRANT REVENUE-STATE
GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL
GENERAL FUND MATCH
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$ 2,103
23,828
2,103
2,103
$30,137
Motion:was offered by.Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt-'the
following resolution to approve an appropriation in the amount of $67,735 for
operations of the Visitors Center (Form #900036). Roll was called andthe
motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: VISITOR'S CENTER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FY 90/91 VISITORS CENTER OPERATION
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1980072050910024
1980072050920024
PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS
INTEREST PAYMENTS
TOTAL
$16,757
50,978
$67,735
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2980015000150229 RENT
$67,735
TOTAL $67,735
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution to approve an appropriation in the amount of $949,612
for a Moderate Rehabilitation Grant (Form #900037). Roll was called and the
motion carried with the following recordedvote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. HUmphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: MODERATE REHABILITATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 90/91 MODERATE REHABILITATION
OPERATIONS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1122781920579001
1122781920579002
1122781920579003
1122781920579004
HOUSING ASST PAYMENTS
VACANCY LOSS PAYMENTS
DAMAGE/UNPA%D RENT
UTILITY REIMBURSEMENT
TOTAL
$915,72/
7,575
12,310
14,000
$949,612
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
103
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
212273300033001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL $949,612
TOTAL $949,612
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution to approve an appropriation in the amount of $57,039 for a Drug
Enforcement Grant (Form #900038). Roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
~.FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: DRUG ENFORCEMENT GRANT
PURPOSE OF'APPROPRIATION: FY 90/91 DRUG ENFORCEMENT GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1121531015110000
1121531015120000
1121531015210000
1121531015310000
1121531015540210
SALARIES
SALARIES-OVERTIME
FICA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
RENT-CONFERENCE FACILITY
$ 7,724
20,671
2,172
14,000
1,064
1100093010930200
GENERAL FUND MATCH 11,408
TOTAL $57,O39
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2121533000330001
2121551000512004
2100051000510100
GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL
GENERAL FUND LOCAL MATCH
$34,225
$11,408
GENERAL FUND BALANCE 11,408
TOTAL $57,039
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
following resolution to approve an appropriation in the amount of $1208.22 to
refund the State an unexpended balance on a Thomas Thomas Jefferson Health
Grant (Form #900039). Roll was called and the motion carried with the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCALYEAR: 90/91
FUND: THOMAS JEFFERSON HEALTH GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 90/91 REFUND OF UNEXPENDED BALANCE
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1122951030580310
REVENUE
REFUND $1208~22
TOTAL $1208.22
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2122951000510100
FUND BALANCE $1208.22
TOTAL $1208.22
At this time, Mr. Breeden provided the~Board with a report on school
activities and fund balances; Mr. Breeden thinks the school system willlend
the fiscal year showing approximately $60,000 to $80,000 in unused funds.
This balance is the result of a combination of some Federal programsand
school fund activities. It appears to him that the Cafeteria Fund will Show a
balance which should provide sufficient funds to repay the $40,000 from last
year's operations. He will have a complete report on~ these activities for the
Boardnext ~month.
104
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Breeden stated that an application is currently being prepared for
the remaining $16.0 million of an approved $19.0 million bond issue with the
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA). The other $3.0 million was issued in
the Spring. Mr. Breeden commented that there are several scenarios that could
occur in the Fall: !) VPSA could fund the entire $16.0 million; or 2) VPSA
could fund one-half of the $16.0 million and fund the balance in the Spring.
If VPSA funds one-half of the $16.0 million in the Fall, the County's cashflow
needs could still be met. He will know something from VPSA at the end of the
month, after VPSA's Board meets. The amount of the bond issue depends on the
total applications VPSA receives. To be realistic, he thinks that VPSA will
approve $2.0 million or $3.0 million in the Fall bond issue, and then autho-
rize the County to proceed with a "stand-alone" bond issue through VPSA for
the,~balknce. The "stand-alone" will not be available until December, 1991, or
January,~1992.
Mr. Bain asked why the County does not request.a "stand-alone" for the
entire $16~0 million. Mr. Breeden responded that it is entirely up to VPSA
and they must approve the issue. Mr. Bain asked if it is possible~that VPSA
will issue $3.0.mitlion in the Fall and then limit the amount of a-"stand-
alone", which would then require another bond issue in the Spring, 1992% Mr.
Breeden responded "no". He thinks that if VPSA allows the County a "stand-
alone", it will approve the full amount of the issue, but~he thinks a better
option~would be if VPSA issues one-half of the money in the Fall and.then
issues theother one-half in the Spring. He still thinks that VPSA will issue
$2.0 million to $3.0 million in the Fall and the balance approved for a
"stand-alone". Mr. Breeden said there will be some documents coming to the
Board-during September and October involving the Fall bond issue. There was
no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. tld. Appropriation: Request to appropriate funds to
Walnut Creek Park Project - Parks and~Recreation.
Mr~ Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated July30, 19917
addressed to Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive, from Mr.
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation:
"We have completed the removal of asbestos and the separation of
utilities at the Old Scottsvilte School and have a balanceremaining
of $10,618.24 (1~9000~71000-950021).
I'woutd like to. request that the Board of Supervisors appropriatethis
balance to the Walnut Creek project budget (1-9000~71001-800605). Our
current project budget is getting tight and we would like to have a
source of funds to clean up some erosion areas, do some additional
seeding and generally spruce things up before our grand opening next
spring. Also~ the heavy rainsof the past few weeks has caused some
serious erosion along the roadway, which is now our responsibility to
fixuntil the-road is taken into the State system.
It would be helpful if this request could be placed on the Board's
August agenda, so we can avoid any delays if we do get an unexpected
change order.on the final phase of construction.
Even with this additional appropriation, the County's share for this
project will be $190,000 less than the original appropriation once
highway funds have been reimbursed."
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way,'to adopt the
following resolution to approvean appropriation in the amount of $10~618.24
in additional funding for~Walnut Creek Park (Form #910009). Roll was~called
and themotion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: kDDITIONAL FUNDING FOR WALNUT CREEK PARK~
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
105
1900071001800605
WALNUT C~EK PARK
TOTAL
$10,618.24
$10,618.24
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100
CAPITAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$10,618.24
$10,618.24
Agenda Item No. lle. Appropriation: FY 1991-92 Fire Service Program.
Mr. Tucker said the Co~unty recently received FY 1991/92 Fire Service
Program~Funds in the amount of $65,233.67. This amount exceeds the budget
projection of $62,790 by $2443.67. He requested that the $2443.67 be appro-
priated and'-iallocated evenly between the volunteer fire departments.
Motion was offered by Mrs.~Humphris, seconded b~' Mr'. Bain'to~iadoPt a
resolution to approve an appropriation request for the distribution of addi-
tional Fire Service Program revenues in the amount of $2443.70 (Form #910005).
Roll was called and the motion carried bythe.fOllowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, MrS. Humphris, Mr. Perkins andMr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE~'OF APPROPRIATION:
DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL FIRE SERVICE
PROGRAM REVENUES
EXPENDITIIRE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100032020560702
1100032020560802
1100032020560902
1100032020561002
1100032020561102
1100032020561202
1100032020561302
NORTH GARDEN VOL FIRE DEPT
SCOTTSVILLE VOL FIRE DEPT
CROZET VOL FIRE DEpT
EARLYSVILLE VOL FIRE DEPT
EAST RIVANNA VOL FIRE DEPT
STONY POINT VOL FIRE DEPT
SEMINOLE TRAIL VOL FIRE DEPT
TOTAL
$ 349.10
349.10
349.10
349.10
349.10
349.10
349.10
$2443.70
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100024000240417
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
TOTAL
'$2443.70
$2,443.70
Mr;'Bowie asked Board members if therewere any objections to.taking up
Agenda item'No. 15d at this:time, He noted that. Mayor Raymon Thacker from the
Town of Scottsvilleand severatTown citizens were in the audience. There
were nO~objection~'f~om Board members.
AgendaItem'Nol 15d. Proposed ScottsvilleAnnexation.
Mr. Tucker said that action on the proposed Scottsville annexation was
deferred at the May 8, 1991, meeting to allow the Mayor of Scottsville and
Town Council an opportunity to address the staff's proposal.
Mayor 'Thackerhanded out maps to Board members, and read from a prepared
statement (copy on file), which told the history of the Town and indicated why
it was reasonable and necessary for the people of the Town of Scottsville to
want more land. He stated that more people, more land space and more finan-
cial ability are. the three things needed to make Scottsville. a viable, produc-
tive and growing community. He:suggested that a committee be formed
consisting of two people appointed by the Board and two people from theTown
of Scottsville to study the proposal, further.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Townhad plans'to annex any part of Fluvanna
County. Mayor Thacker responded "no", not at the present time. He added that
he does not know if it would financially benefit the Town to annex any of.
Fluvanna CountY because the particular section closestto the Town is-extreme-
ly hilly and is probably of no value~ nor. does he think that the people in
Fluvanna would like to be annexed. In addition, providing sewer and water to
that area would probably be too costly~
106
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Way suggested that the Board follow the Mayor's suggestion to appoint
a committee of two members of the Board of Supervisors, two members of the
Scottsville Town Council, the County Attorney, Scottsville Town Attorney and
whatever County Executive staff assistance may be necessary to meet to discuss
the proposed annexation and report back to the Board. He does not think that
the Board can discuss the issue at this time because more information is
needed and a mechanism is needed to get that information. If such a committee
is formed, the committee could hold a public hearing in the Scottsville area
to get feedback from the people in the area proposed for annexation. After
the committee gathers all the necessary information, then this Board can
discuss the entire subject and make a decision. He thinks that there is a
workable solution acceptable to all of the parties involved and that the Board
should move~forward with formation"of the committee.
Mr. Bain commented that he does not think it is necessary to proceed with
the formation of a committee until the County Attorney provides a legal
opinion and the Board know the possible effect, of the. Grayson Commission's
findings on annexation.
Mr~ St. John responded that he" does not know when the Grayson Commission
will make its report. It is his belief that the Grayson Commission's primary
focus is 90 percent on the relationship of independent cities, and not the
relationship between towns and counties. He stated that a, town remains part
of the county, and town citizens are county citizens, which is unlike an
independent city. He does not think that the report will have a radical
affectlegally as it relates to annexation by towns. He has some serious
concerns about the prospect of the County entering into an agreement allowing
Scottsville to annex~ Hesaid. that.this does not mean that these concerns
could not be overcome through an agreement, but they are things that he feels
should be considered. He believes that if annexation is going to be.~consid~
ered, thena committee should-beappointed now rather than wait for the
Grayson Commission report. Right now he thinks it is "putting the cart'before
the horse"~to have him give the Board a legal lecture on the implications of
annexation before a meeting is held with the people from Scottsville.
Mr. Bowie feels that there are many issues to discuss before the Board
can make a decision. He' would also support formation of the committee.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to author-
izethe formation of a committee of two members from the Board of Supervisors,
two members from ScottSville Town Council, the County Attorney, the Town
Attorney and whatever.County Executive staff assistance may be necessary to
meet to.discuss the proposed annexation and report back to the Board.
Mr. Bain commented tthat he is open-minded, but he has many reservations.
He said that a lot more financial information is needed~ If. the committee is
formed, he would like it. to givethe Board information periodically and not
wait and give the Board all of its findings at one time. In the process of
the~committee's findings, there may be other questions that come up from Board
members that could beconsidered.
ROi1 was then calledand the motion carriedwith the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs.. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr~ Way.
NAYS: None.
- Mr. Bowie then acknowledged the presence of Mr. Gordon Anderson, a
resident of Scottsville and asked him if he had any comments.
Mr. Gordon Anderson, owner and operator of Chester Bed & Breakfast on
Route-726, said'that his business is located approximately 500 yards beyond
the'corporate limits of the T6wn. He is a member of the ScottsvilleChamber
of Commerce, and is~'an interested and affected property owner. ~He~is conk
cerned about how annexation would affect him as a property owner, what servic-
es will be provided and the financial significance to the Town. There are
less than 250 people in the corporate limits of'the Town and'he is concerned
about seeing the historical legacy of the Town perpetuated.
(Mrs~ Humphris left. the meeting at ll:~0-a.~ml)
discussion at this time.
There was no further
107
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 12. Gate & ~ee Permit - Walnut Creek Park.
Mr. Tucker presented a permit agreement between the Virginia Department
of Transportation and the County to allow for the construction of a gate and
the collection of a fee at Walnut Creek Park. Since the park road was built
in part with recreation access funds, it will become a State road. This
permit is necessary to allow the County to gate the road at night and to
charge a park usage fee during the summer months. He requests the Board to
authorize the Chairman to sign the permit agreement.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to authorize the
Chairman to sign the following permit agreement between VDoT and the County to
allow for the congtruction of a gate and the collection of a fee at Walnut
Creek Park. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following record-
ed vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT.: Mrs. Humphris~
(The agreement is set out below:)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SPECIAL ~L,A~). USE PERMIT AGREEMENT
Permission is hereby granted to the Albemarle County Boardof
Supervisors to construct a gate or other barrier across and to block
and close-Route 880 in Albemarle County. Route 880 is to be blocked
fOr the purpose of providing security for Southern Regional Park and
its facilities in Albemarle County.
The permission hereunder granted being subject to the following
~terms.~ conditions and restrictions:
A fee for park facility usage may be collected at the park
entrance to cover the Cost of park facility operations. No
fee shall be assessed for use of roads within the state
secondary~highwaymaintenance system;
The gate, gates, or other barrier gates are to be erected in
accordance with plans or sketches submitted to and approved
by theResident Engineer of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.. The gatesare tO be located as approved by
the Resident Engineer., and the constructionis to be under
the.supervision and direction of the Resident Engineer. The
County of Albemarle agrees to bear the full cost of all such
devices present-and future.
The gates are to be locked when closed, and keys are to be
furnished to theResident Engineer. Albemarle County Board
will be responsible for other interested parties having
access when the gates are closed. (Law enforcement, fire
and lifesaving personnel.)
The gates are to include reflectors and/or reflectorized
signs to indicate the road is blocked, as well as a sign
indicating hours the Park will'be open tothe Public. The
County agrees to bear the full cost for all such devices
present and future.
Operation of the gate or gates, and the closing and opening
of gates, is to be entirely by personnel of Albemarle
County.
TheVirginia Department of Transportation Board shall not be
responsible for any damase~or liability arising from or out
of. the exercise of the privileges herein granted or fromany
operations inconnection with the gates or Park.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
108
The County shall at all times give strict attention to the
safety and rights of the traveling public, his employees and
himself. Failure to employ proper traffic control and
construction standards mandated by permit shall be cause for
the Resident Engineer to order the permittee off the rights
of way and/or be cause for'revocation of Permit.
The County agrees to carry insurance against liability for
personal injury and property damage that may arise from the
work performed under permit and/or from the operation of the
permitted activity -- up to one million dollars ($1,000,000)
each occurrence to protect the Board members and Depart-
ment"s agents or'employees; seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000) each occurrence to protect the Board, Department,
or the Commonwealth in the event of suit.
This Permit is not transferable, and shall be revocable by
the-Virginia Department of Transportation Board upon 30 days
notice.
10. This Permit shall be revocable without prior notice upon
breach by the Permittee of any of the terms thereof.
11.
This Permit shall notbe construed as a grant of permanent
interest or easement, or as an abandonment of use of title
to the said road, orany part thereof., anything herein
contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
12.
Immediately upon the revocation, cancellation or expiration
of this Permit, the Permittee shall remove from the premises
of the Virginia Department of Transportation all structures,
facilities and other appurtenances installed or erected by.
it or used by it. under the terms of this Permit, and shall
restore the premises to a condition satisfactory to the
Virginia Department of Transportation Board.
13.
This Permit may be canceled at the request of the Permittee
upon 60 days notice subject to the terms of paragraph 10
above..
Agenda Item No. 13. AlcOhol/Drug Free Workplace Policy, Revision of.
Mr. Tucker said the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is requesting that
the Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace Policy be amended to allow for department
heads to require a pre-employment drug screening for applicants for temporary
employment in positions designated on the. approved.safety related position
list. In such cases, the department head would be responsible for informing
the Director of Personnel of this requirement and. would also pay the costs
related to such testing. The current policy allows for testing of finalists
for permanent County safety related employment. The reason for excluding
temporary employees from such testing was cost related. Dr. Hastings, Direc-
tor of Personnel, indicated that shedoes not see that this newprovision will
be used frequently, however in certain cases such as the emergency center dis-
patch operators, the department head would be able to exercise the prerogative
to test, if this was deemed necessary for safety. Mr. Tucker said there are
not a lot of temporary employees at the EOC, but occasionally theyhave to be
replaced, and the Director of the Center felt that it was important from a
liability standpoint. (Mrs. Humphris returned at 11:43 a.m.)
Mr. Bowie ~aid that he does not have any problem supporting this request.
Mrl Bowermanasked if volunteers in the Police Department require~drug
screening since they work in safety related situations. Mr. Tucker answered
"no;" those volunteers are technically not employees. Mr. Bowie felt that
issue should be pursued because if volunteers are required to adhere to some
County policies, they should have to adhere to allpolicies. Mr. Tucker
replied that volunteers are not put into.positions that, in the staff's
opinion, could have a negative impact on the County.
109
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
revised Alcohol/Drug-Free Workplace Policy, by adding the following sentences
within Subsection A, Section IV, Preemployment Testing/Referral for Testing:
"Department Heads may determine that applicants for certain positions on the.
designated list must undergo the preemployment substance test for temporary
employment. In such instances, the Department Head is responaible notifying
the Director of Personnel of this requirement and will be responsible for all
associated costs." Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted Policy is set out below:)
PERSONNEL.
ALCOHOL/DRUGFRE~ WORKPLACE
Procedure for Compliance - Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace
IV. Preemployment Testing/Referral for Testing
A substance test will be given at County expense to all new
persons offered permanent employment in certain safety
related positions with the County. These positions will be
designated on alist approved by the County Executive or
Superintendent and will be maintained by the Assistant
Superintendent/Director of Personnel. Department Heads may
determine that appticantsfor certain positions on the
designated listmust~undergo thepreemployment substance
test for temporary employment. In such instances, the
DepartmentHead is responsible for notifying the Director of
Personnel of this requirement and will be responsible for
all associated costs.- In addition certain positions that
require annual physical examinations will have a substance
test added to the examination as a requirement for continued
employment. Two positive results on any substance test will
result in denial of employment rights.
Principals/Department Heads may require that emPloyees
undergo testing for substance usage if they suspectsuch
usage in the workplace. Such,testing will be coordinated
through the County Physician services provided by Martha
Jefferson Hospital.
Employees in certain safety-related positions who are taking
a prescribed medication which may impair perf6rmmnce, are
required to inform the supervisor of such medication and to
bring a statement from his/her physician regarding, the
likely effects of the medication on the employee's job
performance. The positions covered under this provision
will be included on a list in the Personnel Office and will
be made known to employees in.those job classes.
ThroUgh this program of~ providing every employee with.the infor-
mation listed above as well as alcohol/drug abuse education and
trainingprograms and the Employee Assistanae Program, the-County
is making a good-faitheffort tomaintain a drug-free workplace,
Mr. Bain asked.for~more, information on an article he read'in The Daily
Progress about a revision to the~Personnel Leave Policy adopted.by the School
Board. Mr. Tucker-said the only information he has also came from the~arti-
cle. It is his understanding, from.thenewspaper articlethis is a pilot
project at one the schools where employees are given, both annual and sick
leave in a lump sum and can use it whatever way they desire. Mr. Bain said
this Board has continuously addressed the issue of commonality and he feels
this new policy is moving away from commonality. He-asked staff to provide
110
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
more information on the issue. Mr. Bowie suggested that the issue be dis-
cussed at the next joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School
Board.
Agenda Item No. 14. Resolution to Planning and Coordination Council
designating PACC Tech as Regional Coordination Body for Entrance Corridor
Guidelines.
Mr. Tucker said at a recent meeting of the the Planning and Coordination
Council Technical Committee (PACC Tech), a resolution was proposed designating
the PACC Tech as the regional coordination body for entrance corridor guide-
lines. He suggested.at that meeting that the proposed resolution be brought
to the local governing bodies for review. When he mentioned the resolution to
the Board, the Board suggested that the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
provide comments. The ARB discussed the proposed resolution and~made the
following comments:
"1.
The ARB is seriously interested in distributing information about
development of its guidelines to regional interests, receiving
their comments and discussing the guidelines with those inte-
rested persons and organizations. The ARB feels that PACC Tech
is an appropriate body for providing this type of review and
comment and would welcome PACC Tech's input.
The ARB has some reservation about the designation of PACC Tech
as responsible for 'coordinating entrance corridor guidelines in
the City, County and. University.' It feels that each jurisdic~
tion has a somewhat different perspective in dealing withcorri-
dors--the County under the pressure of new development~ the City
with very limited new development but redevelopment potential,
and the University and its interests as a developer, particularly
when UREF is considered. It is unlikely that guidelines will be
the same in each jurisdiction!s case. Therefore, the ARB feels
'coordinating entrance corridor guidelines' should be a general
reference to an attempt to have complimentary guidelines rather
than common guidelines. '
The ARB feels that PACC Tech's participation should be advisory
and non-binding, as is the case for other interested persons and
organizations.."
Mr. Tucker~suggested that the resolution be amended to address the
concerns of the ARB. He then suggested adding a sentence to the last para-
graph reading: "Such review and coordination.is advisory only and non-
binding.!' Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman agreed with the addedtanguage~ Mr.
Tucker suggested amending the resolution and putting it back on the August 21
agenda. There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 1Sa. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 11:50 a.m.f-motion was offered by-Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to adjourn into executive session~under Virginia Code Section2~l-344A.1 in
order to discuss personnel relating to evaluation or performance of specific
individuals. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: MesSrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr.~ Way.
NAYS: None.
At 2:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session, with Mr. Way
absent. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs.. Humphris,
to adopt the following certification:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECDTIVEMRRTING
WHEREAS~ the Albemarle'County Board of Supervisors has convened
anexecutive..meeting on this date pursuant.to an affirmativerecorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
111
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
0pen. meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT~DURINGVOTE: Mr. Way.
ABSENT DURINGMEETING: None'.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: Stormwater Management~Report.
Mr~ Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated. April 26, 1991, from
Mr~ J. W. Peyton Robertson,.Jr., Water Resources Manager, addressed to Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, was presented:
"As chairman-of",theWater Resources Committee, I amforWarding to you
the attached Special Report on Stormwater Management in Albemarle
County. The committee has spent several meetings discussing the issue
of stormwater management and has produced the report as a summary of
its findings. The~committee includes the following representation:
J~-W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Watershed Management Official, Office of
Watershed Management
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning and Community Development
Richard Moring, Director, Engineering Department
J. Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, Thomas Jefferson Soil &
Water Conservation District
GeorgeW. Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer~
Authority
The'.Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soiland
Water Conservation has reviewedAlbemarle County's water resources
management policies to determine whether or not.the county has a
'local program' as described in the recently issued State Stormwater
Management Regulations. The State has determined that Albemarle does
not have a local program and has further determined that no local
government in.Virginia currently has the elements of a complete
program. Thiswill allow for a 'bottom up' approach in building
stormwatermanagement programs across the state.
Even though~the State has made this determination, the Water Resources
Committee feels strongly that stormwater management represents an
important policy issue that should be discussed by the Planning
Commission andBoard of Supervisors.
SPECIAL REPORT ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
The Comprehensive Plan~calls for the Water Resources Committee to
address specific water resource questions and concerns. The Water
Resources Committee has identified stormwater management as a major
policy issue, tn response both to periodic flooding anddrainage
problems in-the urban area of the County and state and federal
stormwater management regulatory activity, the Water Resources Commit-
112
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
tee has undertaken a review of local stormwater management policies.
This review has included an analysis of existing programs to address
stormwater and some preliminary analysis of impending changes to state
and federal regulations. The committee has identified several issues
for your consideration:
Short Term:
Jurisdictional Issues: (1) Geographic scope of the stormwater
provisions of the subdivision ordinance and (2) Overlap of
programs to address runoff control, erosion and sediment control,
and stormwater;
Scope of the Problem: (1) Lack of a comprehensive inventory of
existing drainage facilities, (2) Limited effectiveness of
existing programs and (3) Fragmented administration and enforce-
ment.
Long Term:
Financing: (1) Limited CIP funds and alternative financing
mechanisms to address remedial projects;
Comprehensive Stormwater Management: (1) Need to develop re-
gional strategy to address stormwater and (2) Need to retain a
special emphasis on drinking water supply protection (runoff
control);
o State and Federal Regulation: (1) Increasing emphasis on water
quality as well as quantity and (2) Inspection and monitoring.
SHORT TERM: Short term problems revolve primarily around the current
drainage provisions of the subdivision ordinance which specify a
geogyaphic area in which they apply. These boundaries relate to
drainage basins in the urban area surrounding Charlottesville but do
not correlate, with those areas intended for development (growth.'areas)
as identifieRin the current comprehensive plan. Development is
occurring outside these defined drainage areas (example: Pantops
Mountain) which does not fall under existing requirements.
Lack of understanding on the part of the public.has lead to confusion
in determining what stormwater requirements apply for a given loca-
tion. The runoffcontrol ordinance applies within the watersheds of
public drinking water impoundments, the erosion and-sediment control
ordinance applies county-wide, and the drainage provisions of the
subdivision ordinance apply to the drainage basins of Moores Creek,
Meadow Creek,-Powell Creek, Redbud Creek, Town Branch and those
unp~med branches, whether perennial or intermittent, Which flow
directly into theRivanna River from either Fork of the Rivannaand
thence downstream with the Rivanna to its confluence with MOores
Creek..." (Subdivision Ordinance).
Enforcement and administration of stormwater management falls under
different agencies. The Engineering Department approves drainage
structures on site plans but may not inspect these facilities'during
construction. The,erosion-control officer is not specifically Charged
with, stormwater management enforcement and maynot discover stormwater
problems during construction or when inVestigating complaints.
Inspection of stormwater management facilities,is beyond the normal
scope of zoning and building inspectors and site Plan violations, may
be overlooked.
Quantifying existing drainage problems remains difficult in the
absence of any inventory of onrsite facilities constructed for indi-
vidual development projects~ Facilities for runoff control require a
permit and thus can be identified. Other stormwater structures
necessary to meet subdivision requirements have been documented only
on individual site plans. There is no comprehensive inventory of all
drainage structures nor an analysis of how these structures are
related within-a given drainagearea.
113
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
A file of drainage complaints has been compiled in the Engineering
Department. A 1983 Urban Drainage Study was conducted in response to
drainage complaints and CIP projects were prioritized on the basis of
that study. While the number of complaints from a particular area can
give some indication of drainage needs, it does not provide any
engineering analysis of how to address problems. Prioritization of
individual drainage projects should be based on an analysis of where a
given control measure can produce the greatest benefit for the least
cost. An identified staff person to begin an inventory of existing
facilities and develop an analysis of the scope of the problem could
facilitate better prioritization.
These short term items describe the immediate problem. The following
discussion of long term issues identifies the need for a more compre-
hensive stormwater management program.
LONG TERM: Long term issues are-related to lack of adequate financing
to accomplish~all drainage improvements and impending state and
federal regulations which could impact local stormwater management.
Remedial maintenance, projects are beyond the meansof an individual
homeowner and often beyond the means of a homeowner's association. If
the County responds to a particular problemby becoming involved in
remedial maintenance, it has established a precedent'of public in-
volvement in~ drainage improvements which results in a never-ending and
escalating reliance on public funds. Thislong term problem demands
that the County begin to lookat innovative financing mechanisms to
achieve both retrofitting of existing drainage problems and planning
ofcapital investment for future facilities.
House bi11'1770, passed in the ~General Assembly this year, enables the
use of stormwater utilities byVirginia localities. A stormwater
utility relies on. user fees. rather "than general tax revenues~to fund
the planning, design and.construction of capital projects, as well as
ongoing maintenance, inspection, monitoring and enforcement for
existing facilities.. The utility acts to administer a comprehensive
drainage program which responds to complaints, analyzes drainage
problems, and prioritizesprojects. Stormwater utilities have the
advantage of being able to-issue revenue bonds to finance up.front
capital costs. '
The Virginia Department~ of Conservation and Recreation, Division of
Soiland Water ConserVation has issued Stormwater Management Regula-
tions which became effective onDecember 5, 1990. These regulations
establish minimum criteria for localities which have an adopted
stormwater management program. The Division has recently reviewed the
runoff control ordinance, stormwater provisions of the subdivision
ordinance, and erosion andsediment control ordinance and determined
that~Albemarle does not have a "local program" whichwould require
conformance to State regulations. Even though the determination does
not require immediate action, the regulations could have a significant
impact on local stormwater management-efforts in the future.
At thefederal level, the EPA has recently issued guidance on a
stormwater permitting program which will follow the existing National
Pollution DiScharge Elimination System"(NPDES) permitting required for
industrial.discharges. Although federal regulations have not been
developed for municipalities with populations less than 100,000, it is
envisioned~ that similar regulations will be forthcoming for these-
smaller jurisdictions. Current regulationsrequire.facility NPDES
(stormwater) permits for landfills, wastewater~treatment.plants,
airports, vehicle maintenance-facilities, and-construction sites of
five acres or more.
Both state~ and fedeCal~regulations add water quality design criteria
to stormwat~r management in addition to quantity controls. Monitoring
of_.stormwater discharges and annual reporting of pollutant loadings
and reductions will be required. Theserequirements will add signifi-
cant costs~to the administration of a stormwater program.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Basedon the. issues identified, the Water Resources
Committee recommends the following:
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Short Term:
Amend current stormwater provisions to apply county-wide based on
imperviousness/density thresholds consistent with the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Review existing programs and consider the consolidation of all
water resource management policies in one codified document°
Continue to implement projects that have been funded on a priori-
ty basis in the Capital Improvement Program.
Authorize staffing (either in-house or on a contractual basis) to
begin an inventory of existing drainage facilities in the county.
Map regional watersheds and identify areas where drainage com-
plaints/problems occur most frequently. Draft a preliminary
report which outlines the scope of drainage needs and makes
recommendations for acomprehensive drainage program.
Work with the University of Virginia and City of Charlottesville
in a cooperative program to resolve drainage problems and plan
for future needs. Cooperative stormwater management between the
City, County and University can be addressed by the Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC).
Long Term:
Track the progress of other localities as they implement
stormwater utilities and requirements of the state stormwater
regulations and federal permitting program.
Develop a county-wide stormwater management master plan which
considers the relationship between .on-site and/or regional
controls for any given drainage basin."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission reviewed the Stormwater Manage-
ment Report .earlier this summer. During their'review, several Commissioners
expressed a desire to serve as a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to
work with the Water Resources Committee in the implementation of the recommen-
dations in the report.
Mr. TuCker said although many of the recommendations will require further
action by'this Board, staff recommends the Board accept the report and request
the Water Resources Committee and a subcommittee appointed by the Chairman of
the Planning Commission to work jointly in developing the provisions and tools
necessary to implement the short and long term aspects of the report.
Mrs. Humphris felt the report was extremely well done and was impressed
with the amount of information contained within it. Mrs. Humphris then
offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the Stormwater Management
Report and requested the Water Resources Committee and a subcommittee appoint-
ed by the chairman of the Planning Commission to work jointly in developin, g
the provisions and tools necessary to implement the short and long term
aspects of the report.
Mr. Bain asked about a time frame for the report. Mr. Tucker said a
status report could be given to the Board in a couple of mont~,. He thinks
that it will take longer to develop some of the provisions of the report. Mr.
Bain suggested that a preliminary report be given to the Board a£ter.90days,.
Mrs. Humphris agreed to include in her motion that a status.report be
brought back to ~the Board in 90 days. As seconder, Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded: vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphrisand Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 15b. Work Session:
Schedules.
Development Ordinances' Fee
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated August 6, 1991, from
the County Executive; and memorandum dated August 5, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M.
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, respectively:
"Attached is a staff report addressing the various concerns and
comments raised in June from our discussion of the development review
fee schedule. The schedule itself provides a choice for your consid-
eration of fees necessary for recovering 75' percent of the cost of
~services or for recouping 100.-percent of the costs.
If you choose to amend our development fees after review of the report
and proposed fee schedule, a resotutionof intent to amend thefollow-
ing code and ordinance sections will be necessary:
Albemarle County Code:
Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 2.1-2;
Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Section 7-4(d);
Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, Section 18-43 FEES; and
Chapter 19~1, Article II Protection of Public Drinking Water,
Section 19.1-6.
~Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance:
Section 4.15.4.1, Sign Permits; and
Section 35.0, Fees."
"At its meeting on June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors deferred
this.item to a work session on August 14th during the regular day
meeting. The deferral was to allow staff to:
increase, recommended fees from 50 percent-of the costs
incurred tO either: (a) a phased increase of 75 percent,
then 100 percent or (b) 100 percent all at once;
review certain applications with the intent of subsidizing
the fees for those services which serve a public purpose,
such as: (a) low and moderate cost housing, (b) agricul-
tural/forestal districts and (c) other Comprehensive Plan
objectives;
adjust fees if inequitable between: (a) individual home-
owners and developers and (b) small vs.~ large development
projects.
We have changed our recommendations for all but a few fees to reflect
the Board's~'desire to. recover more than 50 percent of the costs of
providing development-related services. While our recommendations now
reflect a cost recovery of 100 percent, we have also supplied the
figures for a cost recovery of 75 percent, should the Board wish to
phase any increase. Since this review began, the Board has adopted
the water resource protection ordinance. We have amended the fee
worksheets to include a recommendation for the.additional review made
necessary by this ordinance.
In response to the Board's request that we further review the fees
charged for services that benefit the public primarily, we have
identified four areas of possible subsidy: low- and moderate-income
housing, agricultural/forestal districts, amendments to the Comprehen-
sive Plan and certain emergencies.
After some discussion~with the Planning Department, we have concluded
that planning and zoning fees for low- and moderate-income housing
projects are minimal when compared to building permit fees. For
example, the planning and zoning fees for Crozet Crossing equaled
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
$800; for building permits, $8800. We asked Mr. Jesse Hurt, Director
of Inspections, to comment on the feasibility of waiving building fees
for low- and moderate-cost housing; he responded that 'fairness is
better served by applying these fees consistently'. Mr. St. John, in
an opinion,~ stated 'waiver of the (building permit) fees to individu-
als or groups who-do not qualify for donations, simply because these
individuals or groups are building low cost houses, is highly ques-
tionable' Furthermore, the cost of the documentation needed to
receive a subsidy for development fees may offset the subsidy.
Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance currently provides for a type of
subsidy by allowing developers to increase the density of development
offering low- and moderate-income housing.
In recognition of the fact that mobile homes provide affordable
housing, we recommend that fees for these special use permits be
subsidized at a 50 percent cost recovery, which equals $B5. (~The
current fee is $25). We further recommend that this fee be standard,
whether the special use permit is handled administratively or' sent to
public hearing, to avoid penalizing citizens whose requests for mobile
homes raise objections from their neighbors. We also recommend that
fees be waived when special use permits for mobile homes are requested
due to emergencies such as the loss of a home to fire.
In addition to low- and moderate-income' housing, agricultural/forestal
districts also provide a public benefit. We recommend that fees for
these districts be subsidized to recover 50 percent of the cost, in
order to be consistent with other recommended subsidies. Since the
current fee is only $50, this recommendation would result in an
increase in the fee charged, to $150~ Wefurther recommend that no
fee be charged for additions to and renewal of existing agricultur-
al/forestal districts~ This is in part due to the impracticality of
collecting fees for additions-and renewals, Applicants currently pay
$25 for emergency mobile homes.
We are also recommending that fees for Comprehensive Plan amendments
be subsidized to recover only 50 percent of the costs. There is no
fee currently, we recommend a fee of $315. Public requests for
amendments to the Comprehensive Plans usually arise from those who
intend to utilize the amendment for development. The proposed fee
reflects only the cost of review up until the Board~passes a resolu~
tion of intent to adopt the amendment, and not the actual study
itself.
The-last fees-we recommend subsidizing are those charged for amend-
ments to the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area in
caseof emergencies. There is no fee ~harged currently; we recommend
that no fee be charged in the future for emergencies. We are recom-
mending a fee of.$70 for all other requests to amend the jurisdiction-
al.boundaries.
Finally, staff was asked to consider reducing fees based on thescale
and type of development. Sevetal members of.the Board expressed
concern over charging individual homeowners the same fees as develop-
ers. Very few of the development-related services are used by home-
owners. We are recommending that one such service, the review of
erosion control plans, cost less for residential and agricultural uses
($40) than for commercial uses ($100). Both individual homeowners and
developers pay building permit fees; these are based on the value of
construction.
Our recommendations also would tie fees to the size of the develop-
ment, since large development require additional review and provide
larger profit margins to the developer. The rezoning for a~develop-
ment of 50+ acres would require a higher fee than a development of
less than 50 acres. The recommended feesfor site plans would depend
on both the type of development, commercial or residentiat~ and the
scaleof development, by levying additional charges per unit or square
foot of development. Please note that many smaller developments
requiring less intensive review may be handled under site plan waivers
and minor plan amendment, which cost much less than the site plan fee.
:1.1'7
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
In response to a question from Mr. Don Wagner, we have researched how
much of the budgets for Planning, Engineering and Zoning is derived
from development-related fees. Depending on whether salaries alone or
the total budget is considered, development fees make up two to 3.6
percent of the budget for Zoning, two to 4.6 percent of the budget for
Engineering and ten to 13.2 percent of the budget for Planning."
(Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 2:56 p.m.) Mr. Bowie said that he
has consistently supported the theory that money-making activities should pay
their own way.
~Mr. Bowermansuggested that the fee schedule be advertised at 100 percent
and then following the public hearing, the Board decide whether to phase the
increase or decide on a percentage of increase.
Mrs. Humphris asked, when the fee schedule would become effective. Mr.
Bowerman.suggested January, 1992. Mrs. HumPhris said although she has mixed
feelings about the increases, she feels the fees should be advertised at 100
percent. Mr. Bowermanagreed. Mr. Bain said he also has mixed feelings about
some of the fees, but he thinks that most of them are appropriate.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could adjust individual line items in the
proposed fee schedule to take into account various situations. Mr. Tucker
replied "yes".
Mr. Bowerman commented that the current recovery costs to the County are
absurdly low in terms of the benefits they accrue to the people making the
application for rural area developments.
At this time motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded, by Mrs.
Humphris, to adopt, a Resolution of Intent to amend the County Code and Zoning
Ordinance to implement anew fee schedule, to be effective January 1, 1992, to
provide for recouping up to 100 percent of the cost of services, and to set a
public hearing on the proposed amendments for September 18, 1991.
Roll was cal.ledand the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain,~Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
R E S O L O T I O N O F I N T E N T
BE IT P~SOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia., does hereby state its intent to amend various
ordinances and to adopt certain resolutions to set fees, all as set
out below:
To amend and reenact Section 2.1-2 of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural
and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, in subsection (c),
as follows:
(c) Each such application for creation of an agricultural and
forestal district shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred fifty
dollars ($150.00). No fee shall be charged for adding parcels to an
agricultural and for~stal distriCt,.or~for r~vi~wing an ~xi~ti~g~
agricultural and forestal district.
To~am~d~d r~enact Section T-4 of Chapter7, Erosion amd
Sedimentation Control, ofthe Code of All~marle, in subsection (d), as
follows:
(d) Upon~the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
secti6n 7~B~the:~applicant~shatl pay t6 the. county ~ fee ~-me~en-~
tyr~eforty'dotlars~to dover ~he~cost to,the'county to, review andto
act'upon such soil erosion plans for residential or agricultural
sites; and one hundred dollars ($100.00) to review and act upon such
plans for all other sites. For each erosion controt~inspection
necessitated by this~plan, a fee of twenty-f~ve thirty dollars
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
($30.00) shall be paid by the applicant. The maximum fee chargeable
under this section, inclusive of inspections, shall not exceed three
hundred, one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars.
To amend and reenact Section 18-43, Fees, Chapter 18, Subdivision
of Land, of the Code of 'Albemarle, as follows:
(a) Preliminary plat. The subdivider shall pay. a fee at the
time when the preliminary plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the
form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle,. Virgin-
ia," the amount thereof to be determined in accordance with the
following schedule:
(E)--Yhree-tots-or-te~s---sixty-~ive-dottar~=
-- (1) For review by the Commission:
-a-. One'~to hine lots, -five hundred;~.sixty-fiv~ -dollars:''~
($565,oo).-
($880.00).
($1,060.00).
(2)
b. Ten to nineteen lots, eight hundred eighty dollars
c. Twenty or more lots, one thousand sixty dollars
Each.filing of-a-'prelimina=y plat~ whether or no{ a
preliminary plat for the same property has been filed previously,
shall be subject,to the-same:-requirements~
- (b) Final plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time the
final plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a 'check
payable to the"County of Albemarle, Virginia~" the amount thereof~to-
be determinedin aceordance with the~f011owing schedule:
(1) Commission approval: Three'hUndred-ninety-dollars;
ptus-one-dot.~ar-per-totr
$565;00).
( 88o.oo).
($1,o6o.oo).
(2)
a. One to nine lots, five hundred sixty-fivedollars
b~,Ten to nineteen-lots, eight hundred eighty dollars
c. Twenty or more lots, one thousand sixty dollars
Administrative approval, including family divisions:
thirty seventy-five dollars ($75.00).
(3) Exempt plat: -Fifteen Twenty dottars.($20;00).
(4) Condominium plat: Sixty-five Eighty dollars ($80.00).
(5) In addition to the foregoing, in the case of any plat
on which is shown any road to be dedicated to public use, or any
private road~ the subdivider shall~pay to the county a fee~equal to
the cost of the inspection of the construction of any such road. Such
fee shall-be paid upon completion of all necessary inspeetions and
shall-be deemed a part of the cost of construction of such road for
the purposes of section 18-19.
(c) Waiverrequest of subdivision requirement: Sixty-five. One
hundred forty dollars ($140.00).
(d) Relief from cOnditions by-,Commission on plat.: One hundred
forty-dollars ($140.00).
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
(e) Appeal of plat to board of supervisors:
dollars ($190.00).
(f)
($1o.oo).
One hundred ninety
Redating of plat, approved and not recorded: Ten dollars
(g) Change in road or development name after submittal of plat:
(h)~ Extending approval of'~plat:
(1) Change in road name: Fifteen dollars ($15.00).
(2) Change in development name: Twenty dollars ($20.00).
Thirty-five dollars ($35.00).
(i) Granting request to defer action on plat to:
(1) A specific date: Twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
(2) Indefinitely: Sixty dollars ($60.00)..
(j) Bonding ~nmpection for plat: Forty-five dollars ($45.00).
(k) Request to board of supervisors to vacate a plat: One
hundred thirty-five dollars ($135.00.
To amend Section 9 of the Water Resources Protection Ordlnancein
the Code of Alb~narle, in subsection (c) and subsection (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 9. Water Quality Impact Assessment.
(c) Minor Water Quality Impact Assessment:
A minor water quality impact assessmentlshall be required
for any development which results in land disturbance of greater than
two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet but less than ten thou-
sand (10,000) square feet within resource protection areas and re-
quires any modification or reduction of the landward fifty (50). feet
of the one hundred (100) foot buffer area. A minor assessment must
demonstrate that the remaining buffer area and necessary best manage-
ment practices~.will'~effec~ively'~achieVe..Pollutant, removal eq~Livatent
tb~t~ie one,hundred (100)-Lfoot buffer. A request'.~.for a minor"assess- .~-~
ment.shall include a site drawing, accompanied by a fee of twenty
dollars ($20.00) in the form of cash or a check made payable to the
"County of Albemarle", to scale which shows the following:
(d) Major Water Quality Impact Assessment:
A major water quality impact assessment shall be required
for any development which results in ten thousand (t0,000) square feet
of land disturbance or greater within resource protection'areas and
requires modification or reduction of the landward fifty (50) feet :of
the one hundred (100) foot buffer area. A request for a major water
quality impact assessment shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty
dollars ($50~00) in,the form of.cash or a check made payable to-the
"County of Albemarle", and. shall include the elements listed-for a
minor water quality impact assessment, and the following additional
information:
To amend and reenact Section 35.0, Fees, of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made
to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the boardof
supervisors shali be accompanied by a fee as set forth
hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such applica-
tion.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home and-home-ocenpat~on - $~5:88: $35.00.
2. Rural area divisions - $~65v88v $990.00.
3. Commercial use --$~65v88v $780.00.
4. Industrial use --$~65~80~ $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility -
$8 o.oo.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $165.00.
7. Public utilities - $~38v88~ $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit -
..- $85.00.
10. Extending special use permits $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
HomeOccupation-Class B - $560.00.
12. Ail other uses - $~88=88v $780.00.
b. For amendment, to text of zoning ordinance ~:$65r00~
$665.00. ·
c. ~r---For Amendment to the zoning map --$~65rOO-pt~s
2=---For-amendment-~o-zon~ng-map-~or-ptanned-develep-
men~s---$528=88-ptns~$~acre=
For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres -
$1,255~.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments under 50
acres $815.00.- .~
4. For all other zoning mapmmendments 50~or more
acres - $1,255.00~
5. Minor amendmentto a Zoning Map Amendment, e.g.,
amending use proffer - $175.00.
~v---For-reqnests-~or'a-var~anee-~o-the-board-of-zon~ng
appeats---$65=88=-Board of'Zoning~Appeals:
1. Request for a variance - $95.00.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals
(including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision.) $~5~88~ $95.00, to be refunded if the
decision of the zoning administrator is over-
turned.
~:---For ~reliminary-site development plan --$5~O:OOr
1. Residential - $945.00, Plus $10.00/unit.
Non-residential .... $1,260..00,.plus-$10~80/~000
square feet~ .....
f. Final sitedevelopment plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
If reviewed by the commission before approval of
preliminary sitedevelopment plan ~ $9~0~00.
3=---For-f~na~-m~te-devetopment-ptan-(¢ommis~n
review),
a)---Pr~r-to-pretim~nary-ptan-appr~vat.'--~Rgr88r
b)---A~er-pretim~nary-ptan-appr~vat---$B88r88=
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
:_121
If reviewed by the commission after approval of
the preliminary site development plan - $630.00.
For site development plan waiver
$215.oo.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a)
Minor - alterations to parking, circulation,
building size, location --$B8~80~, $75.00.
b) Major - commission review
$215.oo.
o
Review of site development plan by the architec-
tural-review'board - $160.00.
Appeal of site development plan to the boardof
supervisors $190.00. - '
Rehearing of site development plan by commission
or board of supervisors - $150.00.
Rejection,by agent of incomplete site .development
plan:
a. Rejected within ten days - $t60.,00.'
b. Suspended after Site Plan Review $515.00.
For relief from a condition of approval from Commission
or landscape waiver by agent - $65~88~ $140.00.
Change in road or development name after-submittal of
site development plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development $20.00.
Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
Granting request to defer action on site development
plan, special use permit or zoning map amendment:.
i. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
Bond inspection for site development plan, for each
inspection after the first bond estimate - $45.00.
Zoning clearance for new businesses to occupy existing
sites - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1.
Of determination, such as parcel of record or
category Of use -$60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00.
Sign Permits:
Anysign, except auction and temporary event
signs, in excess of five feet - $25.00.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
2. Sisns required to be reviewed by the architectural
review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice
required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be
charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section.
Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds
for the denial of any application. For any application
withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the
fee will be refunded.
To amend:andreenact Paragraph No. 2 of the POLICY FOR SUBMITTAL
OF PROPOSED AM~S TO TME COMP~R~RNSIVEPLANOF AL~ COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, to read as follows:
2. Comprehensive Plan amendment applications may be filed at the
Department of Planning and Community Development on or before the
first Tuesday, respectively, of he months of March and September. The
application should beaccompanied by cash or a check made payable to
the "County of Albemarle, Virginia~" in theamount of six hundred and
twenty-five dollars ($625.00).
To adopt by resolution the following fees:
Request to amend service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to include property for water and/or sewer service -
$130.00, howaver, no,~fee-:shatlbe charged fdr emergency reque~s~hen
Emergency request to amend service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for water and/or sewer service
(when public safety is an issue) $130.00.
Request to abandon roads which-may or may not have been a part of
the State SecOndary System of Highways - $135.00.
AND FURT~RW STATES ITS INTENT to repeal language in Section
4.15.4.1~Sign~Permits,-of the.:~,Albemarle~.COunty Zoning Ordinance,
relating to fees:
4.15.4.1 SIGN PERMITS
· No pers0n Shall erect or-cause to be~erected any~sign, '
except auction and~temporary event signs, in excess of five
(5) square feet in area unless and until a permit therefor
shall have been obtained from the zoning administrator,
Snch-perm~r~hatt-be-~s~ued-upon-~he-paymen~-~-a-~ee-~n-~he
amo~n~-o~-~wen~y-dottars-~$~OrOO)-~o-¢over-~he-¢os~-~n~den~
~o-~he-~s~nance-o~-~neh-perm~-a-nd-npon-a-f~nd~n§-by-~he
zon~ng-adm~n~mtra~or-~hat-~he-proposed-~gn-¢on~orms-~o-the
reqn~remen~s-of-~h~s-ord~nan~e=
AND,FIJltTltI~ requestS the-AlbemarteCounty-Planning Commission to
review and hold hearing(s) on this resolution of intent, and to return
its recommendation to this Board as soon as possible.
Agenda Item No; 15c. Work Session: Private Toll. Road
Parkway.
Meadow Creek
Mr, Tucker presented the following memorandum dated August 2, 1991, from
the County Executive;-and. letter dated July t2.~ t991~,fromthe Gounty-Attor-
ney, respectively:
"On Friday~ July t2~ staff met with Mr.,, Lauren.J. Walters of the. Toll
Road Corporation of~¥irginiaand Mr..-.Hutlihen Moore, their legal
counsel, toRiscuss the ptOceSS~and legal aspects of establishing a
toll road,-undet:the Virginia Highway Corporation Act of 1988. These
two individuals have experience in this matter from their work on the
August 14, ·1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Dulles Toll Road Extension in Loudoun County, an apparently 'first of
its kind' approach to road development in the United States. Under
the Act, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approval is first
required for the toll road and the State Corporation Commission (SCC)
approval is then required for the toll road's financing plan. CTB
approval will likely take one year to 18 months based on their experi-
ence. SCC approval will likely take another year. By law, once you
have CTB approval, you have two years to start the project.
The process involves several recommended steps outlined below:
(1) Complete traffic alignment and engineering studies so that
vehicle trips per":day, parcels, affected and components (length,
br%dges, interchanges/intersections) of the facility can be deter-
mined;
(2) Negotiate early for right-of-way. Shifts to the alignment may be
necessary in this process. The County can condemn property for the
alignment, although such condemnationshoutd take place concurrent
with the closing of all acquisitions. No condemnation was necessary
on the Dulles Toll Road;
(3) C6nduct an environmental analysis to determine impact, mitigation
and opposition. This is a critical component of the process because
of the potential time necessary to mitigate'impacts;
(4) Price the facility in ,current dollars, including engineering,
right-of-way and~construCtion;
(5) Determine the feasibility of the project based on costs and
projected revenue. Messrs. Walters and Moore stated any financial
feasibility study to ultimately gain support from private investors
wouldhave to be based on the traffic analysis and level of Service
after~improvementsto Route 29;
(6) A toll road would.not be viable unless the Meadow Creek Parkway
segment from Preston Avenue to Rio Road is in place or under construc-
tion; and
(7) Due to the long lead time on the possible toll road segment,
Messrs. Walters and Moore stated it was premature to invest more time
and funds in pursuing a toll road alternative at this time.
The franchise to operate the facility~ once granted, is allowed, to
exist for 10 years longer than the facility's permanent financing.
that time, the facility is turned over to VDoT.
At
Obviously, such an endeavor raises numerous legal and practical
questions. The County Attorney has noted his thoughts in the attached
letter (set out below) for your consideration. Mess~s. Walters and
Moore raised questions as to the Meadow Creek Parkway's purpose,
timing, potential use and the alternatives to the Parkway. Both
agreed that more study would be necessary to establish the potential
need for the Meadow Creek Parkway as a toll road.
Staff recommends that no action is needed at this time until the
recently approvedMeadow Creek/Timberwood Parkway alignment studies
are completed."
"I am dictating this immediately after our conference with Hully Moore
and Warren Walters, and after re-reading the Virginia Highway Corpora-
tion Act of 1988 (Code Section 56-535 through 552).
Theconference was very helpful to me in understanding this~Act. I am
not going to memorialize the entire conference, but only to give you
for your file and for future reference, some basic thoughts which
occur to me while these are still fresh in my mind. A question which
was raised, but could not be answered, is whether or not local govern-
ment can exercise eminent domain to condemn right-of-way for a toll
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
road under this Act. The Act specifically denies the right of eminent
domain, to a private toll road company. Because of the preamble to
the Act, where its purpose is stated, I believe that a county could
exercise its power of eminent domain for this purpose, but if the time
ever comes when we embark on a toll road project, I would certainly
want to have this question resolved before we get down to the 'closing
date'. At least we would want an Attorney General's opinion.
If it turns out that the power of eminent domain cannot be used, then
this means that any individual landowner in the path of such a. road,
could absolutely veto that particular route. This in turn, means that
any owner can 'hold out' for any price he or she wants, and I don~t
believe a t°ll road could ever be built in this county if each land-
owner in its path had this veto or 'hold out' power.
Furthermore, if-such a project is ever initiated in thiscounty, I
would expect the Supervisors, staff and County Attorney to be very
careful to see that the countyis absolutely protected not only from
monetary exposure, in the event of default, but from being left. with a
half built road or a strip of land it cannot use. You will notice
that in the event of default, under Section 56-549 the Highway Depart-
ment may take over construction and operation of the roadway, but it
does not have to do so. If it elected not to do so, we would be left
holding the bag.
I would strongly recommend that we proceed very cautiously in this
direction, and if this is such a good idea then other localities will
engage in it and we can see how they make out."
Mr. Tucker said that if significant improvements were made to Route 29,
Mr. Walters and Mr. Moore thought those improvements would probably reduce the
effectiveness, in.terms of financial feasibility, in gaining therevenue
necessary to pay for an extension of the Meadow Creek Parkway. If improve-
ments for Route 29 were delayed, a study could then determine the feasibility
of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Bain did not think that this Board should take any action until the
Meadow Creek/Timberwood alignment is finished. He mentioned the City of
Charlottesville's section of the Parkway and a prior discussion that the
section of the Parkway up to.Rio Road needs t.o be built. He is still inter-
ested in doing a feasibility study. He does not think that legal advice is
necessary at this time, but thinks it would be a good idea to slOwly start
pursuing this matter in the sense of having something done before the year
2000.
Mr~ Bain asked if a request was made to the Attorney. General and the
response'was negative, would the County be required to get authorization to go
ahead with the plans. Mr~ St. John said, theoretically, the County's ~onty
function is to approve the location and design of the road. He saidthe rest
of the mmtter is between the private toll road corporation and State agencies.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees with the staff's recommendation to take no
action at this time.
Mr. Bain does not want the matter dropped because he feels the'Meadow
Creek Parkway is critical, and unless there is some funding from:the State,
the project is still far away. He thinks that the Board will need to consider
how to build the project, if it really thinks that Meadow Creek is needed as
part of the' CATS Plan. Mrs. Humphris remarked that since the Sverdrup Study
does show thatthe improvements planned for Route 29 North will not work
unless the Meadow-Creek Parkway is in place, there is a need for it to be
built using taxpayer dollars. Mr. Bowie thinks that a feasibility study needs
to show that there is enough traffic to make it worth building.
Mr. Tucker commented that concerr~ were expressed that improvements to
Route 29 will improve traffic flow and might reduce the feasibility of Meadow
Creek becoming aprivate toll road.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mrs. Humphris suggested that some previous charts presented by Mr. David
Benish, Chief of Community Development, showing available monies that could be
used to fund the Meadow Creek Project should be considered. Those charts
indicated an entirely different picture from what the County had been led to
believe relative to the availability of monies. The charts also indicated
that the County would have funds to build its segment of the project.
Mr. Bain asked when the completion date is for the Meadow Creek/Timber-
wood study. Mr. Tucker responded that he thinks the study will be ready in
the Spring, 1992.
Mr. Bowie asked if his impression from representatives of the Toll Road
Corporation that the Meadow Creek Parkway was not feasible is correct. Mr.
St. John explained that the representatives did not say that the project was
Jot feasible, but, instead, said they were interested in looking into the
situation. Mr. St. John said it would have to be determined whether or not
the :project is feasible. He went on to say that a whole'financial structure
has to be put together and taken to the State Corporation Commission since it
has to be assured that there will be funds to complete the process. There was
nofurther discussion.
Agenda. Item No. 16. Moved to Agenda Item No. 18a.
..... Agenda-ttem-No=-~7=-~,BS-p=mv---5o~n~-Meet~ng-with-the-Sch~ot-B~ard~-Room
5J6: (Cancelled).
Agenda Item No. 18. Other ~Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said the Criminal Justice Training Center asked the Chief of
Police if the County would consider donating to it one of the County'~'K-9
vehicles. This vehicle is currently not in service and would normally be
auctioned. The Center will use the vehicle to train students and police
officers. Although this request has been made to other police departments,
one has never been made to the County. Mr. Tucker added that he does not see
aproblemwith .this request. He does not think such a request will be made on
a continuous basis. He recommends that a 1987 Dodge Diplomat, previously used
for K-9 purposes,~be donated to the-Criminal JuStice-Training .Center f-or use
in~studentand police officer training.
Mr. Bowie asked if there were any objections by the Board. There were no
objections.expressed.
Mr. Bain asked if the Road Naming Committee has completed, their work.
Mr. Tucker responded "yes", although he has not seen the report. He hopes to
get the report to the Board by the end of September.
Mr. Bowie called attention-to the appointments list and asked if Mr.
Tucker wanted to continue serving on the JAUNT Board. Mr. Tucker responded
that Ms.~Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, has been attending the meetings
and he recommends that the Board appoint her to the JAUNT Board.
Mr~ Bowie suggested that appointments be put back on the August 21 agenda
and that~the Clerk contact the persons eligible for reappointment to see if
they are still interested in being appointed.
Mr. Bowie said he received a memorandum from Mr. Cliff Haury, Chairman of
the School Board, of which a copy will be provided to the Board for discussion
on August 21. The School Board agreed to a joint meeting time and date of the
second Wednesday of the month at 3:00 p.m. commencing in September, 1991,
however, the School Board requested that the Board of Supervisors consider a
joint meeting on alternate months at5:00 p.m. on the second or fourth Monday
of the month.
August 14, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mrs. Humphris said the Meals Tax Committee has requested that this Board
get an endorsement of the proposed meals tax from the School Board and the
Planning Commission. The Committee would like to use these endorsements in
its brochure. She thinks that the Chairman should write a letter to the
School Board and Planning Commission asking their endorsement of the meals
tax. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board concurred. There were no objections.
Mr. Bowerman added that the Committee also needs a formal endorsement by
this Board. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris that the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors give its unanimous endorsement to the proposed
meals tax. Mr. Way asked Mrs. Humphris to include in the motion how the Board
expects the revenue from the meals tax to be used. Mrs. Humphris added to her
motion that the revenue from the meals tax will be used for capital projects,
and most particularly for schools. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following-recorded Vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkinsand Mr~ Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. St. John commented that a proposed ordinance on the meals tax will be
presented to the Board on September 11.
Mrs. Humphris called to the Board's attention the hot summer temperatures
and notedthat in some parts of the Joint Security Complex, the temperature
gets up to 100 degrees. She suggested Board members visit the facility
sometime so they can understand theneed for improved ventilation. The heat
is posing a difficult situation, not only-for the inmates, but also for staff
people. She thinks that a ventilation system is an absolute necessity.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 3:29 p.m., with no further businessto
come before the Board the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman